On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:35 AM, Stefano Lattarini
wrote:
> I should at this point decide whether just devote my "Automake time"
> to mainline Automake (which amounts at letting Automake-NG die,
> basically) or to Automake-NG (after tying some loose ends in the
> mainline Automake code base, of cou
On 02/02/2013 07:27 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>>
>>> Git surely makes it easy to promote a branch to a new top-level repository.
>>> Having it available by default in a repository would be easier to grasp
>>> for git-challenged people like me.
>>>
>>
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Git surely makes it easy to promote a branch to a new top-level repository.
Having it available by default in a repository would be easier to grasp
for git-challenged people like me.
Other people have spoken against the need of such a split though.
On 02/02/2013 01:40 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> I subscribe to all the good opinions about NG that have been
>> made here. I would definitely use it once there is a release
>> (I have already been criticized several times for having used
>> then-CVS versions of the Autotools in Bison, and I do
On 02/01/2013 09:47 PM, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote:
> () Stefano Lattarini
> () Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:59:58 +0100
>
>A first step would certainly be making it a separate project on
>Savannah, rather than just a glorified branch in the Automake Git
>repository (plus a dedicated mailing list)
Hi Peter, Eric, thanks for the feedback and the support.
On 02/02/2013 01:51 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2013-02-02 01:15, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 02/01/2013 05:00 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> Supporting INCLUDES in automake-NG costs nearly nothing.
>>
>> This, however, is a statement I'm not willin
On 02/01/2013 08:27 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
>
>> Which makes me think that forcing users to bootstrap the project from a
>> Git branch hidden in Automake's repository in order to use it might be
>> hampering their willingness to give it a
Hi Akim.
On 02/02/2013 08:24 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> Le 1 févr. 2013 à 10:35, Stefano Lattarini a
> écrit :
>
>> So, is anyone using or playing with Automake-NG, or at least
>> contemplating the idea to do so in the short term? Or should
>> we just let the project die?
>
> I subscribe t
Le 1 févr. 2013 à 10:35, Stefano Lattarini a
écrit :
> So, is anyone using or playing with Automake-NG, or at least
> contemplating the idea to do so in the short term? Or should
> we just let the project die?
I subscribe to all the good opinions about NG that have been
made here. I would de
On 2013-02-02 01:15, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 02/01/2013 05:00 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Supporting INCLUDES in automake-NG costs nearly nothing.
>
> This, however, is a statement I'm not willing to concede; so while I
> agree with the decision to deprecate (but not remove) INCLUDES from
> automake,
On 02/01/2013 05:00 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>
> And in fact, I just expressed how I think removing support for
> INCLUDES is wrong, for *both* projects!
I agree that removing it from automake is counterproductive. But I
support removing it from Automake-NG - as long as we are moving to a
newer en
Hi Stefano,
On 2013-02-01 10:35, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> On 02/01/2013 09:45 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> From NEWS in the master branch:
>>
>> - Support for the long-obsolete $(INCLUDES) variable has
>> been finally removed, in favour of the modern equivalent
>> $(AM_CPPFLAGS).
>>
>> Wh
() Stefano Lattarini
() Fri, 01 Feb 2013 19:59:58 +0100
A first step would certainly be making it a separate project on
Savannah, rather than just a glorified branch in the Automake Git
repository (plus a dedicated mailing list). Anyone has experience
or suggestions on how to better
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
I'm happy to read this :-)
You should be happy that a number of us have been interested in
Automake-NG enough to remain subscribed to its mailing list and
provide comments on directions and ideas. Being on the mailing list
requires a level of d
Hi Russ, thanks for the feedback.
On 02/01/2013 07:38 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini writes:
>
>> So, is anyone using or playing with Automake-NG, or at least
>> contemplating the idea to do so in the short term? Or should we just
>> let the project die?
>
> I'm not personally usi
On 02/01/2013 07:18 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>>
>> This wrong approach is probably the result of me trying to keep a foot
>> in both camps -- that is, maintaining mainline Automake while trying
>> to encourage a switch to Automake-NG in the long term
On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
This wrong approach is probably the result of me trying to keep a foot
in both camps -- that is, maintaining mainline Automake while trying
to encourage a switch to Automake-NG in the long term. Probably not a
good move, for any of those projects.
I
Stefano Lattarini writes:
> So, is anyone using or playing with Automake-NG, or at least
> contemplating the idea to do so in the short term? Or should we just
> let the project die?
I'm not personally using it or playing with it yet, but I like the idea of
rethinking the project and eliminatin
[+cc automake-ng]
On 02/01/2013 09:45 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Hi!
>
> From NEWS in the master branch:
>
> - Support for the long-obsolete $(INCLUDES) variable has
> been finally removed, in favour of the modern equivalent
> $(AM_CPPFLAGS).
>
> Why is this removal important? It forces
19 matches
Mail list logo
