Branch management

Branch management

[Neil Jerram]

Just a heads-up: until I get to any work that isn't appropriate for
the 1.8 branch, I'm planning to make all my commits to the 1.8 branch
only, on the assumption that we will do something later to copy those
changes to CVS head.

Has there yet been any post-1.8 work in CVS?  If there hasn't, we
have more options for what that "something later" can be.

I also see a couple of problems with the CVS head branch as it stands.

1. Because it was forked before the 1.8 release, it doesn't contain
   markers in the NEWS or ChangeLogs for when the release happened.

2. For the same reason, it doesn't have 2006 in its copyrights - which
   makes it tedious to compare the 1.8 and head CVS trees.

(To avoid these problems in future, I recommend branching only after
making a .0 release.)

     Neil




_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Branch management

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

> Just a heads-up: until I get to any work that isn't appropriate for
> the 1.8 branch, I'm planning to make all my commits to the 1.8 branch
> only, on the assumption that we will do something later to copy those
> changes to CVS head.

Personally, I've been tracking HEAD (with an own Arch branch) from
before the 1.8 release and the fact that HEAD becomes abandoned in favor
the 1.8 branch isn't very practical to me.  Perhaps other people are in
the same situation?

> Has there yet been any post-1.8 work in CVS?  If there hasn't, we
> have more options for what that "something later" can be.

I posted a few bugfixes, some of which haven't been applied yet, some of
which were applied to HEAD, and some of which were applied to 1.8.  :-)

Thanks,
Ludovic.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Branch management

[Neil Jerram]

ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Personally, I've been tracking HEAD (with an own Arch branch) from
> before the 1.8 release and the fact that HEAD becomes abandoned in favor
> the 1.8 branch isn't very practical to me.  Perhaps other people are in
> the same situation?

Who said that HEAD was abandoned?

    Neil 



_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Branch management

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

> Who said that HEAD was abandoned?

Sorry, that was inappropriately worded.  I was referring to this:

  [...] I'm planning to make all my commits to the 1.8 branch only, on
  the assumption that we will do something later to copy those changes
  to CVS head.

In particular the word "later".  ;-)

Thanks,
Ludovic.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Branch management

[Neil Jerram]

ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Sorry, that was inappropriately worded.  I was referring to this:
>
>   [...] I'm planning to make all my commits to the 1.8 branch only, on
>   the assumption that we will do something later to copy those changes
>   to CVS head.
>
> In particular the word "later".  ;-)

Thanks.  I posted my message to see if anyone had any input on this.
I guess your input is that "later" should be sooner.

So hopefully I'll get some time for this at the weekend.  Is there a
nice way of doing this semi-automatically, rather than reviewing and
copying changes by hand?

    Neil 



_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Branch management

[Kevin Ryde]

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>
> 1. Because it was forked before the 1.8 release, it doesn't contain
>    markers in the NEWS or ChangeLogs for when the release happened.

A merge can/will bring those across.  I think they should be there,
but maybe they're deliberately only on the branch for some reason.

(It's hard to be too worried about changelogs, but the news file
should describe all releases, no matter whether developed as a
sideline.)


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Branch management

[Marius Vollmer]

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

> Just a heads-up: until I get to any work that isn't appropriate for
> the 1.8 branch, I'm planning to make all my commits to the 1.8 branch
> only, on the assumption that we will do something later to copy those
> changes to CVS head.

Yes, that's how it is going to happen.

It wasn't really planned that way.  We did it differently in 1.6 vs
HEAD, where we applied patches to both branches simultaneously by
hand, and we might switch to that mode once HEAD has suffifiently
diverted from the 1.8 branch.
 
> I also see a couple of problems with the CVS head branch as it stands.
> 
> 1. Because it was forked before the 1.8 release, it doesn't contain
>    markers in the NEWS or ChangeLogs for when the release happened.
>
> 2. For the same reason, it doesn't have 2006 in its copyrights - which
>    makes it tedious to compare the 1.8 and head CVS trees.

Yep, the merge from the 1.8 branch should fix this.
 
> (To avoid these problems in future, I recommend branching only after
> making a .0 release.)

Yeah, it would have been OK to freeze HEAD until the release was made.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Branch management

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.de> writes:

> It wasn't really planned that way.  We did it differently in 1.6 vs
> HEAD, where we applied patches to both branches simultaneously by
> hand, and we might switch to that mode once HEAD has suffifiently
> diverted from the 1.8 branch.

Hmm, sorry for bothering you, but would it be possible to not wait that
long before merging?  :-)  Especially since (I presume) patching both
branches should not cause any problem for now precisely because they
have not diverged.

Thanks,
Ludovic.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Branch management

[Kevin Ryde]

I did the dreaded merge.  The 1.8 branch now has a tag

	branch_release-1-8_last-merged-to-head

as described in the cvs manual, ready for the next merge.


You can see the 1.8 to head diff with

	cvs diff -r branch_release-1-8 -r HEAD

The current differences are just version number bumps for 1.9, and
Ludovic's gc sweep stats.


I noticed the 1.8 README still says 1.7.90, I guess that missed
getting updated for the actual 1.8.0.  Something to remember for
1.8.1.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Branch management

[Ludovic Courtès]

Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:

> I did the dreaded merge.  The 1.8 branch now has a tag

Thanks, this is good news!  ;-)

Ludovic.


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel