> > OK, I have to agree that backporting is not fun. :-(
>
> Therefore I wanted you to do it ;-) (but svn merge helps a lot)
Operations themselves are not difficult, keeping track of (and
understanding) who did what, and which can and which can not go are.
Bo
Bo Peng wrote:
> OK, I have to agree that backporting is not fun. :-(
Therefore I wanted you to do it ;-) (but svn merge helps a lot)
Georg
> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> Here is the next step (with ChangeLog entries instead of a log
Georg> message because the svn merge gave them): Actually use
Georg> configure.
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> "Georg" == Georg Baum
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> writes:
> Georg> Here is the next step (with ChangeLog entries instead of a log
> Georg> message because the svn merge gave them): Actually use
> Georg> configure.py. Jean-Marc, is this OK to go in? The plan
> This one is wrong and is not in 1.5.
OK, I have to agree that backporting is not fun. :-(
Bo
> "Bo" == Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bo> x
>> Some of the changes in Makefile.am look suspicious. Georg, do you
>> still have the patch you applied to 1.5? It would be better to sync
>> these.
Bo> The Makefile.am changes are copied from the 1.5.x patch. Just
Bo> compare Makefile.am
> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> Georg Baum wrote:
>> That is the problem. I hoped that you had, and did the syncing
>> yourself. I will not apply your patch (it does too many things at
>> once), but proceed step by step. The first step will be to apply
>> the attache
> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> This patch goes in now. Log: sync cleanup of lib/configure.py
Georg> with 1.5 (no functional changes)
Very good.
JMarc
Georg Baum wrote:
> That is the problem. I hoped that you had, and did the syncing yourself. I
> will not apply your patch (it does too many things at once), but proceed
> step by step. The first step will be to apply the attached patch, which
> according to you is only code reorganization.
Here
Bo Peng wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Attached is a patch for 1.4.x that
>
> 1. remove configure.m4
> 2. copy the latest 1.5.x configure.py to 1.4.x, as far as I know,
> current configure.py and ocnfigure.m4 are in sync.
No, they are not. The changes of r13520 and r13532 (bug 2107) should not go
in 1.
x
>
> Some of the changes in Makefile.am look suspicious. Georg, do you
> still have the patch you applied to 1.5? It would be better to sync
> these.
The Makefile.am changes are copied from the 1.5.x patch. Just compare
Makefile.am with the 1.5.x one.
Bo
> "Bo" == Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bo> Dear all, Attached is a patch for 1.4.x that
Bo> 1. remove configure.m4 2. copy the latest 1.5.x configure.py to
Bo> 1.4.x, as far as I know, current configure.py and ocnfigure.m4 are
Bo> in sync. 3. change some other files accordingly.
Bo> I
> I remember you reorganized configure.py some time ago. Questions:
> 1. Was this pure code reorganization, or did the behaviour change?
That was a pure reorganization. There were some other changes to
configure.xx afterwards but I think they are synced.
> 2. If the behaviour is still the same, c
Bo, I just wanted to sync Angus' recent tex2lyx fix from 1.5 to 1.4, and saw
that configure.py in 1.4 is rather different from 1.5.
I remember you reorganized configure.py some time ago. Questions:
1. Was this pure code reorganization, or did the behaviour change?
2. If the behaviour is still the s
14 matches
Mail list logo
