Well, this particular checkin (N_ in the root module), or the ones fixing bugs (from Andy Wingo) looked to me like they could be applied to 2.4. They wouldn't need to since they don't fix user-visible bugs.
Brings up the question of whether the 2.4.X releases are simply bug fixes or can new smaller bits of functionality and other change be introduced, with 2.6 being reserved for a major change (e.g. Gtk/Gnome 3 support)? I'd have to look back over the 2.2.X release notices to see what kinds of change were allowed in that series of releases. Phil --------- I used to be a hypochondriac AND a kleptomaniac. So I took something for it. ________________________________ From: Geert Janssens <janssens-ge...@telenet.be> To: gnucash-devel@gnucash.org Cc: Phil Longstaff <plongst...@rogers.com> Sent: Mon, March 21, 2011 11:45:19 AM Subject: Re: r20438 - gnucash/trunk/src/app-utils - [PATCH 4/4] Bug #615168: N_ in the root module On maandag 21 maart 2011, Phil Longstaff wrote: > Geert, > > you've just checked in 4 patches. How should we mark patches which should > be back-ported to the 2.4 branch? Should I just pick and choose? > Good question. I seem to remember the devs used to prefix their commit messages with BP in the 2.2.x/trunk period. I found this in the wiki: http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Development_Process#Changeset_Auditing_Process In any case the patches I just applied (a complete series of 12 patches) are definitely trunk only. They together update the windows build dependencies to allow for Guile 1.8.x. The changes are fairly invasive and may definitely bring instability in the build tree. See https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=621238 for more details about this series of patches. Geert _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
