Re: MLB merge is done! Hurray!

[Alexandre Oliva]

Congratulations for completing the merge, and sorry about my long
absence.  I'm afraid it will still last for a while, though :-(

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.

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.

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?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  address@hidden, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        address@hidden, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist    *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me