High time to think about releasing 22.0

[Eric Knauel]

On Mon 13 Dec 2004 06:59, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:

>>>>>> "Eric" == Eric Knauel <knauel at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:
>
>     Eric> On Sat 11 Dec 2004 06:58, "Stephen J. Turnbull"
>     Eric> <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
>
>     >> IMO Eric's most recent patch is even less ready than my branch.
>
>     Eric> I find this statement rather annoying.
>
> Why?  It's simply the truth that that is my opinion.  Given that I
> have the power to seriously hinder any attempt to get your code
> committed to mainline, I rather think I have the responsibility to say
> that publically.
>
> Among other things, that gives you the option of lobbying the Board
> for a more lenient standard starting _now_, if you want to.  I'll
> oppose it, of course, but I won't hold it against you.
>
>     Eric> My plan was to pull together instead of starting some sort
>     Eric> of competition.
>
> That's not competition; I have no intention of merging my sandbox to
> the mainline without substantial improvements.  (Among other things,
> CVS's deficiencies make any attempt to merge both ways an exercise in
> frustration; a branch is really only useful as a public history of a
> workspace up to a once and for all merger back to mainline.)  I don't
> care "whose patch" gets in, and frankly I'd rather have you guys do
> most of the work, and a lot sooner than I'm likely to do it.

Ok, I probably misunderstood.  I just received the impression, that my
patches to the Xft branch would not be welcome for some reason. 

>     Eric> My plan was to submit a patch against your Xft-branch pretty
>     Eric> soon.
>
> Good.  If it builds on at least two different machines, feel free to
> commit the patch to the sjt-xft branch while you're at it.
>
> It doesn't need my approval, just the patch to xemacs-patches, and a
> tag if there's a chance someone might want to run without your patch
> for any reason.  This patch sounds more than big enough to need a
> "pre-commit" tag.  Use something like "cvs tag sjt-xft-NNN" for the
> tag.  No need for a post-commit tag, at least for now.
>
> "cvs update -j tag-thats-broke -j tag-that-works" means never having
> to say you're sorry.  As long as the tag-that-works is fresh enough.
>:-)

This is a fair offer.  I absolutly agree with you that developing,
fixing and maintaining the patch in workspace which is not publically
available makes not much sense. So, what do I have to do to get commit
access to the branch?

>     Eric> I hope that my contribution to your branch is welcome (given
>     Eric> that it is technically ok).
>
> Sure.  But it's not a matter of technical quality, really.  It's a
> matter of design taste.  If it looks like your patches would make it
> difficult to do things the way I think they should be done, I'll ask
> you to make your own branch.  But until it actually comes to that, we
> may as well avoid redundant synching across branches and to
> mainline.
>
> Asking you to make a separate branch doesn't mean my branch is on the
> fast track, either, except to the extent that other developers trust
> my judgment more than yours.  But I don't have a problem with you
> doing the work your own way, I'm just going to oppose committing it to
> the mainline until certain fundamental issues are settled.

I agree.  This approach for working towards a fixed and finished patch
which in shape for committing it to the mainline makes sense to
me. The way I'm working right now is rather tedious.

> I do have a word of advice.  Get one of the advanced revision control
> systems (to my mind that means arch or darcs) and do any merges in a
> local repository for the advanced system.  Even if things work out
> that we can share the sjt-xft branch all the way to integration, it
> makes a lot of operations easier, and can be essential if whoever is
> handling "synch-to-mainline" flakes out for a month.

Sure, if it makes things easier!  However, I'm not sure if I
understood that completely: which merges are you referring to?

-Eric
-- 
"Excuse me --- Di Du Du Duuuuh Di Dii --- Huh Weeeheeee" (Albert King)