On 11/29/2015 06:51 AM, Georg Baum wrote:
> Richard Heck wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2015 10:17 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>>
>>> Besides this it seems that I built the lyx.exe including this patch.
>>> This was not the plan and I hate git for this. It is hard to figure
>>> out what branch is now really used. I took Scott's file into my build
>>> branch but it seems I compiled git master nevertheless.
> If you do not pay attention to what the git advocates say ("it is easy to
> switch branches, therefore you should use only one working directory for
> several branches"), and use one separate working directory for master and
> one for stable, then it is easy not to get confused.
I do this anyway---one tree for master, one tree for stable---for the
simple reason that it saves a lot of compilation time.
> If you don't know how to do that, ask, and you'll get help.
>
>> Are the Windows binaries being built from some git branch and not from
>> the tarball? Or am I misunderstanding something?
> I hope not. We discussed very deeply for the 2.1 release that an installer
> that is labelled "2.2.0 alpha2" has to be built from the source tar ball
> "2.2.0 alpha2", and not from a git checkout. This is true BTW for all
> packagers on all operating systems.
Other messages in this thread have made it seem likely that the Windows
alpha2 release was built from git commit hash 5c35ebcd, about six
commits after alpha2. Uwe said something about trying to import the
tarball into the git tree and getting confused:
> Besides this it seems that I built the lyx.exe including [Richard's]
> patch. This was not the plan and I hate git for this. It is hard to
> figure out what branch is now really used. I took Scott's file into my
> build branch but it seems I compiled git master nevertheless.
but I didn't understand what he meant. Obviously, there's something here
that we need to help Uwe figure out.
Richard
