From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=93scar_Fuentes?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [RFC] Correctly handling MinGW-w64 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 04:50:22 +0100 Message-ID: <87d28l5fr5.fsf@wanadoo.es> References: <87r3x2qyjg.fsf@wanadoo.es> <546973D0.7050306@cs.ucla.edu> <87ioieqxbb.fsf@wanadoo.es> <54697A45.1040505@cs.ucla.edu> <87egt1rhy4.fsf@wanadoo.es> <546A11D5.3090402@cs.ucla.edu> <87a93prfyq.fsf@wanadoo.es> <837fytddih.fsf@gnu.org> <87tx1xptyj.fsf@wanadoo.es> <834mtxbr4t.fsf@gnu.org> <87lhn9ps2c.fsf@wanadoo.es> <83wq6taajc.fsf@gnu.org> <874mtxpj18.fsf@wanadoo.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1416282669 19134 80.91.229.3 (18 Nov 2014 03:51:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 03:51:09 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 18 04:51:02 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XqZoi-0008Tb-Ff for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 04:51:00 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51180 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqZoi-00056v-4O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:51:00 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36035) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqZoP-00056p-Oo for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:50:47 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqZoJ-0005im-JK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:50:41 -0500 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:41038) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XqZoJ-0005hN-4S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:50:35 -0500 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XqZoH-0008Ln-Tx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 04:50:33 +0100 Original-Received: from 132.red-79-158-48.staticip.rima-tde.net ([79.158.48.132]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 04:50:33 +0100 Original-Received: from ofv by 132.red-79-158-48.staticip.rima-tde.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2014 04:50:33 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 31 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 132.red-79-158-48.staticip.rima-tde.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:2g+aCziyctOCpqzfTXeuAQlZHic= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 80.91.229.3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:177518 Archived-At: Glenn Morris writes: > Óscar Fuentes wrote: > >>> How about applying to both (with a suitable "don't merge to trunk" >>> note on emacs-24)? >> >> Not sure how to do that on an effective way. > > Write "do not merge to trunk" in the commit log. > > (And then wait for someone to implement a bzrmerge.el replacement so > that actually does something.) Exactly. I know that gitmerge.el (or whatever) is not implemented, so annotating the commit message has no effect. >> Pushed the change to emacs-24. Let's see how it fares after the next >> merge. > > Ah yes, the "Somebody Else's Problem" method! :) > > (The ideal solution would be for you to now merge emacs-24 to trunk and > resolve the conflicts yourself.) Just tried. Merging all those Changelogs is insane. After resolving all the conflicts, I was not sure about the outcome, so scratched it. If "Somebody Else" wishes to merge up to the prior commit of mine, I'll merge it just afterwards. But after seeing the amount of conflicts on the merge I tried, my change is the least of "Somebody Else"'s concerns.