Re: where to base patch series off of (was: [PATCH 0/6] Lex, Yacc and explicit declarations of dependencies.)

At Tuesday 06 July 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > I just thought that the feature could be a reasonable candidate > > for a new branch, which BTW would have given me a first > > opportunity to mess around with remote branching and pushing > > without touching/endangering the master/maint branches

where to base patch series off of (was: [PATCH 0/6] Lex, Yacc and explicit declarations of dependencies.)

Hi Stefano, * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 11:36:26AM CEST: > At Tuesday 06 July 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Please give me another week to review the series; > OK; but note that this message wasn't meant to hurry you: if this > change goes in automake, it's not gonna need

Re: [PATCH 0/6] Lex, Yacc and explicit declarations of dependencies.

At Tuesday 06 July 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > Please give me another week to review the series; OK; but note that this message wasn't meant to hurry you: if this change goes in automake, it's not gonna need a fast review, but rather a careful one, even if it's slow (as is usual

Re: [PATCH 0/6] Lex, Yacc and explicit declarations of dependencies.

Hi Stefano, * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 01:36:03PM CEST: > I rebased the patch series against master to resolve some (really > minor) conflicts; and since I was at it, I updated the ChangeLog to > tell that the bug addressed by this series affects also Solaris 10 > /usr/xp

Re: [PATCH 0/6] Lex, Yacc and explicit declarations of dependencies.

Hello Ralf. I rebased the patch series against master to resolve some (really minor) conflicts; and since I was at it, I updated the ChangeLog to tell that the bug addressed by this series affects also Solaris 10 /usr/xpg4/bin/make (apparently /usr/ccs/make is *not* affected). No significant, "

Re: [PATCH 0/6] Lex, Yacc and explicit declarations of dependencies.

At Thursday 20 May 2010, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > This patch series stems from a discussion on bug-automake: > [] > > In short, some make implementations tend to use their built-in ".y > => .o" and ".l => .o" rules instead of res

[PATCH 0/6] Lex, Yacc and explicit declarations of dependencies.

This patch series stems from a discussion on bug-automake: [] In short, some make implementations tend to use their built-in ".y => .o" and ".l => .o" rules instead of respectively the ".y => .c => .o" and ".l => .c => .o" implicit