Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 14:10 > To: Libtool > Subject: CVS branch-2-0 R.I.P. > > Fellow Libtoolers (if you're reading, that means you!), > > I still have reservations, but am otherwise somewhat convinced that > dropping development of branch-2-0 in favour of HEAD is a reasonable > thing > to do at this juncture. Unless someone yells to the contrary > real soon > now, I see no reason to continue to maintain branch-2-0 from > here on in. > > In due course, I think it is fine to release 2.0 from HEAD (or a new > release branch from future trunk HEAD to be precise) even with known > minor bugs, provided that we list them in the release > announcement. In > order to speed the release, and in the spirit of "release early, > release > often", I say we identify the actual showstoppers, and > release 1.9h from > HEAD with just those fixed. There is a list of showstoppers > on my wiki > at http://tkd.kicks-ass.net/GnuLibtoolProject/RoadMap. > > If 1.9h is well received, I believe we should release 2.0 soon after > (minor bugs and all), and then work on the remaining regressions for a > quick 2.0.2. In order to prevent any further slippage, until 2.0.2 is > out there we should reject all patches, and commit changes only for: > > - bugs > - regressions > - documentation > - testsuite improvements > - and maybe MSVC support, iff we can confine changes to this system. > > Speak now, or forever hold your peace.
What is the requirements on the autotools for a libtoolized package from HEAD? I heard a rumor that cvs versions were required, at least at some point, is that really the case or was it just a rumor? I can personally live with that the person doing the actual libtoolize needs cvs-autotools, but the rest of the developers on the package should not be required to use cvs-autotools. Cheers, Peter _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool