On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 03:03:20PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > Albert Chin wrote: > >On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:11:48AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > >>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. > > I'm still uncomfortable with this, because we have been commiting > patches to HEAD that were deemed too destabilizing for branch-2-0, > and I (for one) don't remember what they were... > > We have things backwards right now. We should be working on getting > branch-2-0 stable right now, and forward porting any patches generated > in so doing to HEAD. The only reason things have tilted the other > way recently is that we have both been working on big patches that > were easier to verify by adding tests to the new testsuite. > *Conceptually*, even these big patches are for branch-2-0, we just > happened to develop them in the nicer non-frozen HEAD environment.
If the test suite is good enough, why should't HEAD be sufficient to merge into branch-2-0? I think some of us don't care as long as 2.0 is released somehow. Though, I haven't tested 2.0 or HEAD :) -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
