[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: org-merger questions

From: Rasmus
Subject: Re: org-merger questions
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 10:47:04 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux)

Hi Kyle,

Thanks for carefully looking into this.

>> I had to do a few whitespace cleanup to be able to commit.  We should
>> backport those, I guess.
> Hmm, I was hoping I had already caught most of them, but maybe the
> issues you encountered were in the few files changed in
> scratch/org-mode-merge that I didn't look at.  I only checked
> lisp/org/*.el, lisp/doc/misc/org.texi, and etc/refcards/orgcard.tex.

Perhaps I did something wrong.  I used release 9.0.9, not the emacs-sync
branch.  So if there were additional changes on the emacs-sync branch on
top of 9.0.9 I won’t have picked them up.  This is the version I used:


> A few problems in scratch/org-mode-merge:
>   * scratch/org-mode-merge reverts Emacs-specific changes in
>     etc/refcards/orgcard.tex.  This same mistake was made in a previous
>     sync and fixed with Emacs's e90dec2be1.  Since then, there have been
>     additional Emacs-specific changes added to orgcard.tex, and these
>     are all included in Org's emacs-sync branch.

See above.

So do you think it’s best to just cherry-pick these changes back?

>   * I made the mistake of not looking at ORG-NEWS for backports, so
>     scratch/org-mode-merge is reverting a few Emacs commits here.  I'll
>     backport these, and I can also add your ORG-NEWS formatting changes
>     to the Org repo.

Note that the formatting itself is a bit weird in ORG-NEWS.  At least on
my normal Emacs setup it’s always changed when opened.  The only issue was
some dangling whitespace at the end of a couple of lines, which the Emacs
commit hook didn’t like.

>   * The copyright years in Org's etc/styles/README have not been kept up
>     to date, so scratch/org-mode-merge is overwriting the updated years
>     in Emacs's etc/org/README.


> And a question:
>   * Should we include the "@set DATE ..." when we replace "@include
>     org-version.inc" in Emacs's org.texi?  It doesn't seem like we have
>     in the past (e.g., in Emacs's 6f66f53f65).

I don’t know.  I think we should be bound by the Emacs practice, not what
was done in the last sync aeon ago.  Principally, I think documents should
be dated.  I don’t know if it’s right in an Emacs context, as it carries
its own date.  idlwave.texi and elisp.texi are the only other dated texi


Together we will make the possible totalllly impossible!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]