Hi, On Sat, Jun 03, 2000 at 06:15:34PM -0700, Mo DeJong wrote: > Why don't we just create a new branch in the libtool CVS for > autoconf 2.14 support? We can fix all the problems caused by the > autoconf upgrade on the branch and then merge it back into > the HEAD down the road. Does anyone see a problem with that? Just one: time. :-) I don't have the time to maintain another branch. -Ossama -- Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine 1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
- ML branch: okay to switch to CVS automake/autoconf? Ossama Othman
- Re: ML branch: okay to switch to CVS automake/autocon... Stephan Kulow
- Re: ML branch: okay to switch to CVS automake/autocon... Ossama Othman
- Re: ML branch: okay to switch to CVS automake/aut... Stephan Kulow
- Re: ML branch: okay to switch to CVS automake/autocon... Alexandre Oliva
- Re: ML branch: okay to switch to CVS automake/autocon... Mo DeJong
- Re: ML branch: okay to switch to CVS automake/aut... Ossama Othman
- Re: ML branch: okay to switch to CVS automake/aut... Lars J. Aas
- Re: ML branch: okay to switch to CVS automake/autocon... Ossama Othman
- Re: ML branch: okay to switch to CVS automake/aut... Alexandre Oliva