From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Thien-Thi Nguyen Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: autogen.sh now requires workbook specification Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:37:24 -0800 Sender: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87pu1kdndl.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> Reply-To: ttn@glug.org NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1017646942 25701 127.0.0.1 (1 Apr 2002 07:42:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 07:42:22 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16rwSL-0006gQ-00 for ; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 09:42:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16rwS7-0005HZ-00; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 02:42:07 -0500 Original-Received: from ca-crlsbd-u4-c4c-174.crlsca.adelphia.net ([68.66.186.174] helo=giblet) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16rwQE-00053l-00 for ; Mon, 01 Apr 2002 02:40:10 -0500 Original-Received: from ttn by giblet with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16rwNY-0007pN-00; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:37:24 -0800 Original-To: rlb@defaultvalue.org In-Reply-To: <87pu1kdndl.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (message from Rob Browning on Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:00:22 -0600) Errors-To: guile-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:250 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:250 From: Rob Browning Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:00:22 -0600 Hmm, so checking out "hack" gets us a subtree like this: hack/core hack/scripts hack/workbook and autogen.sh just looks up one level? apparently. the code sez: workbook=../workbook # assume "cvs co hack" This made me wonder about having multiple trees checked out. For example, I always keep a core-1.5 and a core-dev tree checked out and jump back and forth between them. If scripts and workbook are supposed to be guile version independent, then am I right in presuming that I should probably just not use the "hack" module and manage my tree by "hand". i.e. just have separate checkouts for guile/core-1.5 guile/core-dev guile/scripts guile/workbook how can anyone presume to ask another person about their own presumptions? see: http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/guile-devel/2002-March/004909.html for a template to start your customization. perhaps you'd like to write a general script and contribute it, or adapt one already written. Also, if scripts and workbook are supposed to be "core independent", people will need to be careful not to accidentally tag them together. it all depends on what the tag signifies to the programmer. in some cases, tagging things together is the preferred way to manage all trees related to some concept concurrently. adding branches, on the other hand, does indeed require care to keep things localized to the relevant cvs modules; workbook and scripts do not branch, basically. (branching is implemented by cvs using special tags, IIRC, so this can be confusing.) thanks for bringing this up. i'll add some introductory text to HACKING and to the web pages. thi _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel