From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: State of the CEDET merge Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:42:28 +0100 Organization: Organization?!? Message-ID: <87lj0kr7y3.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <877hc7lzcc.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <8762rq7w7h.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <871v2en9n1.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <871v2eyece.fsf_-_@engster.org> <87r5ad91dm.fsf@ginnungagap.bsc.es> <87zkp1solk.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87wrk54pzp.fsf@ginnungagap.bsc.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1299922975 27678 80.91.229.12 (12 Mar 2011 09:42:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 09:42:55 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Mar 12 10:42:51 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PyLLW-00071H-Oj for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:42:51 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44362 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PyLLV-000368-CC for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:42:49 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=34782 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PyLLO-00035k-TU for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:42:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PyLLN-00085q-80 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:42:42 -0500 Original-Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]:55343) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PyLLM-00085i-TV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 04:42:41 -0500 Original-Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PyLLL-0006yE-J2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:42:39 +0100 Original-Received: from p508eae39.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.142.174.57]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:42:39 +0100 Original-Received: from dak by p508eae39.dip.t-dialin.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 12 Mar 2011 10:42:39 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 46 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p508eae39.dip.t-dialin.net X-Face: 2FEFf>]>q>2iw=B6, xrUubRI>pR&Ml9=ao@P@i)L:\urd*t9M~y1^:+Y]'C0~{mAl`oQuAl \!3KEIp?*w`|bL5qr,H)LFO6Q=qx~iH4DN; i"; /yuIsqbLLCh/!U#X[S~(5eZ41to5f%E@'ELIi$t^ Vc\LWP@J5p^rst0+('>Er0=^1{]M9!p?&:\z]|;&=NP3AhB!B_bi^]Pfkw User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:7UHbKyfhKfDrt3eKQtisdXQMuYU= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 80.91.229.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:137145 Archived-At: Lluís writes: > David Kastrup writes: >> Sounds like having to track two separately moving targets. > > In fact, I'm only tracking changes introduced in Emacs. But not those > introduced after my last merge for a specific file (these will have to > be manually re-checked). > > Changes in the cedet trunk should be automatically merged when I merge > the branch. > > >> Any idea how to make the respective developers aware of the problem >> and move in a more synchronized fashion, so as to decrease the speed >> with which the task you have focused on grows? > > There's no easy solution. > > On one hand, files in Emacs where introduced with modification wrt the > cedet CVS, so some of them are hard to track. > > On the other hand, people won't be able to contribute all the fixes into > cedet instead of emacs and expect emacs tu pull from cedet; not until I > finish the file-rename branch. > > All this, added with my lack of elisp skill, knowledge on cedet > internals and knowledge on what has been changed and why, make the task > a tough one. Let's assume that you get the task completed in the manner you envision and you are working on right now, and the merge and synch happens as planned. Will that leave Cedet and Emacs in a state where future synchronizations of Cedet to Emacs will be possible in a semi-automatic manner, like Gnus is synchronized frequently right now? Or will it mean that every future synchronization will require just as much effort as your current work? In short: if you manage to catch up with your target, will it be reasonably easy to keep it from running off again? -- David Kastrup