Re: branch-2-0 vs CVS HEAD

[Albert Chin]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:11:48AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Albert Chin wrote on Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 04:41:58AM CEST:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:54:59PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > libtool-2.0 should not rely on newer autoconf/automake. People simply
> > won't adopt it. RHEL 4 ships with autoconf-2.59 and automake-1.9.2.
> > I'm not against requiring the latest, as of now, autoconf/automake,
> > but relying on autoconf-2.60 and automake-1.10 seems way too
> > aggressive.
> 
> ...
>
> So my point is: get HEAD stable now, then branch off and make 2.59/1.9.6
> compatible there.  Then bootstrap the release with the couple of naughty
> system-dependent fixes we know of in those autotools versions.

Seems fine to me.

-- 
albert chin (address@hidden)