[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time

From: Bruce Korb
Subject: Re: I think binary-branch is almost ready for play time
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 19:59:00 -0700

"Gary V. Vaughan" wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> This is how I envision the logistics of integrating your branch to avoid CVS
> merge hell:
>         * Finish the MLB->HEAD merge.
>         * Flush the patch queue (for HEAD and branch-1-4)
>         * Release libtool-1.4.1 (libtool-1.4-p1?) from branch-1-4
>         * Release 1.5b from HEAD, and create branch-1-5
>         * integrate your patch into HEAD (now 1.6a)
> This relies on the MLB merge going well, and assumes that MLB is in good
> enough shape that only a few monthly betas will be needed before 1.5 is a
> resonable prospect.  I still haven't had time to play with MLB, but it seems
> to be widely used and probably is fairly stable by now, I guess.
> Thoughts?

That's fine.  I think I would be inclined to leave the binary-branch
alone until the merging is done.  I *really* don't want the emitted
shell text to go too far afield from the main/mlb branch.  The steps
as I see it are (once bb is in sync with main):

1.  make a change that accomplishes a small goal:
    o fixes a bug
    o unifies common code into global macros
    o moves towards a real program (as opposed to a shell
      script emitter wrapped around the shell script).

2.  emit and verify that either the program will behave
    identically to before, or the bug is fixed.

3.  check in the generated into the main line

4.  Repeat until done.

That means that each step #1 should be small and safe.
Thoughts?  :-)

reply via email to

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