Re: org-merger questions

[Rasmus <rasmus@gmx.us>]

Hi Kyle,

Thanks for carefully looking into this.

>> I had to do a few whitespace cleanup to be able to commit.  We should
>> backport those, I guess.
>
> Hmm, I was hoping I had already caught most of them, but maybe the
> issues you encountered were in the few files changed in
> scratch/org-mode-merge that I didn't look at.  I only checked
> lisp/org/*.el, lisp/doc/misc/org.texi, and etc/refcards/orgcard.tex.

Perhaps I did something wrong.  I used release 9.0.9, not the emacs-sync
branch.  So if there were additional changes on the emacs-sync branch on
top of 9.0.9 I won’t have picked them up.  This is the version I used:

    http://orgmode.org/cgit.cgi/org-mode.git/tag/?h=emacs-sync&id=release_9.0.9

> A few problems in scratch/org-mode-merge:
>
>   * scratch/org-mode-merge reverts Emacs-specific changes in
>     etc/refcards/orgcard.tex.  This same mistake was made in a previous
>     sync and fixed with Emacs's e90dec2be1.  Since then, there have been
>     additional Emacs-specific changes added to orgcard.tex, and these
>     are all included in Org's emacs-sync branch.

See above.

So do you think it’s best to just cherry-pick these changes back?

>   * I made the mistake of not looking at ORG-NEWS for backports, so
>     scratch/org-mode-merge is reverting a few Emacs commits here.  I'll
>     backport these, and I can also add your ORG-NEWS formatting changes
>     to the Org repo.

Note that the formatting itself is a bit weird in ORG-NEWS.  At least on
my normal Emacs setup it’s always changed when opened.  The only issue was
some dangling whitespace at the end of a couple of lines, which the Emacs
commit hook didn’t like.

>   * The copyright years in Org's etc/styles/README have not been kept up
>     to date, so scratch/org-mode-merge is overwriting the updated years
>     in Emacs's etc/org/README.

OK

> And a question:
>
>   * Should we include the "@set DATE ..." when we replace "@include
>     org-version.inc" in Emacs's org.texi?  It doesn't seem like we have
>     in the past (e.g., in Emacs's 6f66f53f65).

I don’t know.  I think we should be bound by the Emacs practice, not what
was done in the last sync aeon ago.  Principally, I think documents should
be dated.  I don’t know if it’s right in an Emacs context, as it carries
its own date.  idlwave.texi and elisp.texi are the only other dated texi
files.  

Rasmus

-- 
Together we will make the possible totalllly impossible!