Re: [bug-gnulib] problems in stdbool.m4

[Paul Eggert]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> writes:

> Paul Eggert wrote:
>> >   1) now, the appended patch,
>> >   2) in a year, change modules/stdbool to require gl_STDBOOL_H,
>>
>> Sounds good, except why wait for a year between (1) and (2)?
>> I don't see the downside of doing (2) now.
>
> People who update from gnulib in a manual, not always synchronized way,
> could be burned. The less trouble a renaming makes, the better.

Sorry, I'm still lost.  If we do (2) now, people will still have two
years to change their code, no?  What is the practical difference
between the schedule you originally proposed, and a schedule that
consists of doing (1) and (2) now, but (3) two years from now?