[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: next steps for inetutils?
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
Re: next steps for inetutils? |
Date: |
Tue, 25 May 2021 18:02:38 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) |
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams@gnu.org> writes:
> > * Fix All warnings with autoconf 2.71 - I didn't want to touch this
> > before 2.0 since we had succesful build reports, but there are
> plenty
> > of old m4 constructs that we should use gnulib tools for instead.
> >
> > * use gitlog-to-changelog instead of manual ChangeLog entries
> >
> > I'm sorta still against it -- since it would ruin my work flow of
> > being able to edit the ChangeLog file post-factum. But I am sure I
> > can be convinced without much work ... if someone else does the
> > work. :-)
>
> Modifying the ChangeLog that ends up in tarballs is possible, see how
> coreutils is doing it. Many GNU projects appears to be moving this way
> already.
>
> A flat file is going to always be much easier to modify than stringing
> together sed expressions.
Sure, although the cost of a rare occurance should be weighted against
the cost of everyday tasks. My experience with multiple projects is
that using gnulib's gitlog-to-changelog saves expensive developer time
that could be better spent on other more useful matters, so I made this
change now.
Surprisingly few issues have came up since the release, and the ones
that did come up were relatively minor. I'll see if I can add some new
feature and aim for a 2.1 release before summer to really send the
signal that we are open for business again. The whois .org issue is
annoying, since it means even a simple 'whois gnu.org' fail with 2.0.
/Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: next steps for inetutils?,
Simon Josefsson <=