Re: RefTeX Merge

[Chong Yidong <cyd@gnu.org>]

Ralf Angeli <angeli@caeruleus.net> writes:

>> No.  Since reftex.el is one file, it is not worth creating a
>> subdirectory just for it.
>
> RefTeX consists of eleven Lisp files.  It might not be a bad idea to put
> them into their own directory.

Sorry, my mistake.

But I have to agree with RMS; it still doesn't seem worth giving reftex
its own subdirectory.

>> Putting them in the commit log may be a fine solution.
>
> If the log can take such amount of data, then I would be fine with it.
> And besides that I'd prepare a shorter entry for the ChangeLog file.

From my estimation, once you take out entries for Makefile changes,
releases, and synchs to Emacs, the ChangeLog is about 400 lines, which
is manageable.  So I think we can put it in the commit log.

In the version to be added to the ChangeLog file, you can collate the
changes to each file, which should shorten the entry significantly.
Still, I think a ChangeLog entry of ~100 lines is acceptable.

>> (Normally, one would use bzr join to
>> preserve the history, but bzr join seems to be badly broken.)
>
> Now that would be a nice solution.  RefTeX is currently maintained in
> a CVS repository, though.  I'm not sure if this makes matters better
> or worse.

Let's not play with bzr join.  We've had bad experiences with that on
the elpa branch.

I suggest just patching the affected files manually, then committing as
though you had made the changes in one shot.  Just be sure not to
inadvertently change the headers (e.g. "This file is part of GNU Emacs")
and so forth.