another merge from 1.8

another merge from 1.8

[Kevin Ryde]

I did another dreaded merge from the 1.8 onto the head.  Insert the
usual whinge, but the specifics this time are:

* If it's going to be utf-8 for the changelogs then please make that
  change in 1.8 too or merges are going to go haywire.

* Are the hpux ia64 bits meant to be in 1.8?  If it's a portability
  matter then it ought to be applicable.

* Is the readline "new-input-prompt" bit meant to be in 1.8?

* Notes about being subscribed to bug-guile would go in 1.8, if
  it's true now.  (Though I believe gnu policy is that anyone can send
  a report, without too many hoops to jump through.)


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

Re: another merge from 1.8

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

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

> * If it's going to be utf-8 for the changelogs then please make that
>   change in 1.8 too or merges are going to go haywire.

Agreed.  I was planning to switch to UTF-8 also in 1.8 at some point.

(I don't know much about the other issues you brought up.)

Thanks,
Ludovic.


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

Re: another merge from 1.8

[Neil Jerram]

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

> * Are the hpux ia64 bits meant to be in 1.8?  If it's a portability
>   matter then it ought to be applicable.

Yes, they should be in 1.8.  From some outstanding reports, I'm not
sure this area is fully correct yet, but it makes sense to do it in
1.8 and then merge to head, so I'll make sure I do that from now on.

Have you already done the merge of these changes to 1.8, or should I
do that?

> * Is the readline "new-input-prompt" bit meant to be in 1.8?

That one's debatable.  It seems on reflection that the change wasn't
directly related to the reported (by Jon Wilson) problem.  So it
should probably be considered an enhancement, not a bugfix - hence not
for 1.8.

> * Notes about being subscribed to bug-guile would go in 1.8, if
>   it's true now.

The report that prompted me to add all these notes was very recent, so
I'd be surprised if it's no longer true that you need to be subscribed.

I guess it would be better for these notes to be in 1.8 too.

Regards,
     Neil



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

Re: another merge from 1.8

[Kevin Ryde]

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>
> From some outstanding reports, I'm not sure this area is fully
> correct yet,

Yep.  As long as it's not going backwards of course :).

> Have you already done the merge of these changes to 1.8,

No.

> or should I do that?

Yes please.

>> * Is the readline "new-input-prompt" bit meant to be in 1.8?
>
> That one's debatable.  It seems on reflection that the change wasn't
> directly related to the reported (by Jon Wilson) problem.  So it
> should probably be considered an enhancement, not a bugfix - hence not
> for 1.8.

I think modest enhancements are definite 1.8 material, no need to wait
the 3 years for a head release, not for bits that are safe and self
contained.


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

Re: another merge from 1.8

[Neil Jerram]

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

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

[about an IA64 HP-UX fix...]

>> Have you already done the merge of these changes to 1.8,
>
> No.
>
>> or should I do that?
>
> Yes please.

I've done this now.

One detail of the merging...  I gather we're preferring to merge
ChangeLog fragments directly, so as to minimize the diffs between the
ChangeLogs in two branches, rather than say inserting the relevant
entry at the top of the ChangeLog in the target branch.

This seems fine to me, but it does mean we lose info about when the
change was actually added to the target branch.  So to remedy that
I've added a note, making an entry read like this:

2006-10-25  Neil Jerram  <neil@ossau.uklinux.net>

	(Merged from CVS HEAD on 2007-01-28.)
	
	IA64 HP-UX patch from Hrvoje Nikšić.  (Thanks!)
	
	* configure.in: New check for uca lib (needed for IA64 on HP-UX).

Then only the added note line shows up as a diff.

If that sounds good, it would make sense for us all to do this when
merging.

I also had to specify a new encoding for the 1.8 ChangeLogs, and
guessed utf-8.  I'm afraid I don't really understand this area, so
please shout if that was wrong.

>>> * Is the readline "new-input-prompt" bit meant to be in 1.8?
>>
>> That one's debatable.  It seems on reflection that the change wasn't
>> directly related to the reported (by Jon Wilson) problem.  So it
>> should probably be considered an enhancement, not a bugfix - hence not
>> for 1.8.
>
> I think modest enhancements are definite 1.8 material, no need to wait
> the 3 years for a head release, not for bits that are safe and self
> contained.

I agree - if we can't manage less than 3 years.  I'd prefer to have
more frequent releases and better release machinery though.  I'm going
to try working on that for a while.

Regards,
     Neil



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

Re: another merge from 1.8

[Kevin Ryde]

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>
> One detail of the merging...  I gather we're preferring to merge
> ChangeLog fragments directly, so as to minimize the diffs between the
> ChangeLogs in two branches,

Yep.

> This seems fine to me, but it does mean we lose info about when the
> change was actually added to the target branch.

Shouldn't matter, usually, hopefully.

> 	(Merged from CVS HEAD on 2007-01-28.)

Sounds fine for a back-merge like this (I wouldn't see a need in a
forward merge though).

> I also had to specify a new encoding for the 1.8 ChangeLogs,

Is that when you let emacs do a merge or update?  The same happened to
me and it offered some strange diffs.  Ludovic put the right local
var, but I suspect emacs doesn't look at it on the first C-x v v that
brings it into the working copy.


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

Re: another merge from 1.8

[Neil Jerram]

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

> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>>
>> I also had to specify a new encoding for the 1.8 ChangeLogs,
>
> Is that when you let emacs do a merge or update?  The same happened to
> me and it offered some strange diffs.  Ludovic put the right local
> var, but I suspect emacs doesn't look at it on the first C-x v v that
> brings it into the working copy.

Yes, it was when I used emacs to copy a chunk of ChangeLog from HEAD
to 1.8.  (I would have been using Ediff to look at the diffs; not sure
whether I was able to use Ediff's copy-across function, or if I had to
do the cut and paste by hand.)

(I'm not sure if your point about C-x v v is relevant, because that's
not a binding that I use.  I prefer the PCL-CVS interface.)

Anyway, does the 1.8 ChangeLog look OK now?

Regards,
     Neil



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

Re: another merge from 1.8

[Kevin Ryde]

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>
> Anyway, does the 1.8 ChangeLog look OK now?

Yes, but I think I changed my mind about putting it in at the orginal
date.  That might make it look like it was in 1.8.0 or 1.8.1 (which it
wasn't of course).  Would you like to move it up to a current date,
and not worry about that entry in the diff.


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

Re: another merge from 1.8

[Neil Jerram]

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

> Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:
>>
>> Anyway, does the 1.8 ChangeLog look OK now?
>
> Yes, but I think I changed my mind about putting it in at the orginal
> date.  That might make it look like it was in 1.8.0 or 1.8.1 (which it
> wasn't of course).  Would you like to move it up to a current date,
> and not worry about that entry in the diff.

OK, that's done now.
 
Regards,
     Neil



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