Re: MLB merge is done! Hurray!

[Gary V . Vaughan]

On Wednesday 11 July 2001  3:56 am, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Congratulations for completing the merge, and sorry about my long
> absence.  I'm afraid it will still last for a while, though :-(

No problem.  Is your PhD demanding more attention these days?

> On Jun 24, 2001, "Gary V.Vaughan" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Anyway, I would like to declare MLB officially dead, and reopen HEAD for
> > development.
>
> Hmm...  This would be a bit of a problem.  The recently-released GCC
> 3.0 is based on the MLB branch of libtool, and I don't yet feel
> confident enough to just drop the branch and adopt the result of your
> merge for GCC 3.0.1; the risk of regressions is way too high.  Still,
> people have been finding and fixing some minor bugs and porting
> issues, and in GCC we have a rule of not modifying libtool files in
> place, but rather of only merging from the libtool tree.  This is the
> only way I could find to make sure patches proposed by GCC developers
> don't get lost, failing to make it to the libtool tree.

Sure.  We don't want to lose anything, certainly...

> Unfortunately, the end result is that I have to either temporarily
> lift the rule in the GCC CVS tree, or reopen the MLB branch in the
> libtool CVS tree, perhaps renamed to GCC 3.0 branch and used solely
> for this purpose, and never having a patch checked in that is not
> backed by a corresponding patch for libtool mainline.

Why not leave it officially closed so that we needn't pay it any attention, 
but unnofficially maintain it purely to expedite the GCC project?  By 
declaring it officially dead, I simply meant that I had no plans to maintain 
it anymore or accept patches against it.  If you are willing to keep HEAD in 
synch' with MLB, I can still ignore MLB =)O|  Lets say that it is a zombie 
branch then :-D

> Would anybody mind if I kept using the libtool MLB for this purpose,
> and explain to anybody who happens to post a patch for that branch
> that a corresponding patch for mainline is required before the patch
> can go in the branch?

Sure.  You will be doing all the MLB maintenance though, right?  I don't mind 
committing the HEAD parts if you are busy...

Cheers,
        Gary.
-- 
  ())_. Gary V. Vaughan     gary@(oranda.demon.co.uk|gnu.org
  ( '/  Research Scientist  http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk       ,_())____
  / )=  GNU Hacker          http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool  \'      `&
`(_~)_  Tech' Author        http://sources.redhat.com/autobook   =`---d__/