Re: Branch management

2006-04-18 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I did the dreaded merge. The 1.8 branch now has a tag Thanks, this is good news! ;-) Ludovic. ___ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Branch management

2006-04-16 Thread Kevin Ryde
I did the dreaded merge. The 1.8 branch now has a tag branch_release-1-8_last-merged-to-head as described in the cvs manual, ready for the next merge. You can see the 1.8 to head diff with cvs diff -r branch_release-1-8 -r HEAD The current differences are just version number

Re: Branch management

2006-03-28 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It wasn't really planned that way. We did it differently in 1.6 vs > HEAD, where we applied patches to both branches simultaneously by > hand, and we might switch to that mode once HEAD has suffifiently > diverted from the 1.8 branch. Hmm, sorry

Re: Branch management

2006-03-27 Thread Marius Vollmer
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Just a heads-up: until I get to any work that isn't appropriate for > the 1.8 branch, I'm planning to make all my commits to the 1.8 branch > only, on the assumption that we will do something later to copy those > changes to CVS head. Yes, that's how it i

Re: Branch management

2006-03-15 Thread Neil Jerram
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Sorry, that was inappropriately worded. I was referring to this: > > [...] I'm planning to make all my commits to the 1.8 branch only, on > the assumption that we will do something later to copy those changes > to CVS head. > > In particular the

Re: Branch management

2006-03-15 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hi, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Who said that HEAD was abandoned? Sorry, that was inappropriately worded. I was referring to this: [...] I'm planning to make all my commits to the 1.8 branch only, on the assumption that we will do something later to copy those changes to CV

Re: Branch management

2006-03-14 Thread Kevin Ryde
Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 1. Because it was forked before the 1.8 release, it doesn't contain >markers in the NEWS or ChangeLogs for when the release happened. A merge can/will bring those across. I think they should be there, but maybe they're deliberately only on the branc

Re: Branch management

2006-03-14 Thread Neil Jerram
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Personally, I've been tracking HEAD (with an own Arch branch) from > before the 1.8 release and the fact that HEAD becomes abandoned in favor > the 1.8 branch isn't very practical to me. Perhaps other people are in > the same situation? Who said that

Re: Branch management

2006-03-14 Thread Ludovic Courtès
Hello, Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Just a heads-up: until I get to any work that isn't appropriate for > the 1.8 branch, I'm planning to make all my commits to the 1.8 branch > only, on the assumption that we will do something later to copy those > changes to CVS head. Personally,

Branch management

2006-03-11 Thread Neil Jerram
Just a heads-up: until I get to any work that isn't appropriate for the 1.8 branch, I'm planning to make all my commits to the 1.8 branch only, on the assumption that we will do something later to copy those changes to CVS head. Has there yet been any post-1.8 work in CVS? If there hasn't, we hav