Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD

[Gary V. Vaughan]

[Moved to libtool list]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote on libtool-patches:
> I kept quiet a while ago when Bob first suggested ditching the CVS
> branch-2-0 and releasing CVS HEAD as 2.0 after a bit of stabilization.
> Now I estimate that, for us combined, it might save us a man month
> (whoohoo, maybe even a mythical one :) or more.
>
> This would be a strong argument to do it, IMVHO.
>
> The only problem is: I don't know how we can get CVS HEAD to work fine
> with released Autoconf/Automake versions.  ATM I'm not even sure which
> issues there are:
> - LTLIBOBJS in subdirs
> - ?

The showstopper for this plan is that libtool is holding up the next
release of all the other autotools[1], so we can't release HEAD as is 
without causing headaches for everyone else, because it relies on 
unreleased versions of the tools that are waiting for another libtool 
release.

branch-2-0 doesn't need to be perfect before we release it -- as long
as it has no known regressions, and good backwards compatibility, then
we can work out the wrinkles in patch releases.

I'm genuinely optimistic that we can release 1.9h within 2 weeks, 
possibly less.  And maybe 2.0 can follow the week after if we've done
a good job of testing.

Cheers,
        Gary.

[1] Autoconf-2.60 needs M4-2.0 needs Libtool-2.0 (ISTR that
    Automake-1.10 is waiting on something here too, but I can't
    find a record of it in the archives).
--
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature