On 7/15/10 9:24 AM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote:
>
> I think that David's idea has some promise now. Create a new branch, with a
> version that's unique to this branch. Do all the changes in files to the
> new version. Get the patch reviewed (and get the reviewers to ignore the
> custom version).
>
On 7/15/10 12:54 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 07:15:38PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:24:05AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
I think that David's idea has some promise now. Create a new branch, wit
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 07:15:38PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:24:05AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> >>
> >> I think that David's idea has some promise now. Create a new branch, with
> >> a
> >> version that's unique to this branch.
>
Graham Percival writes:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:24:05AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>
>> I think that David's idea has some promise now. Create a new branch, with a
>> version that's unique to this branch.
>
> \version "9.999.9" ?
How is that unique to a particular branch?
--
David Ka
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:24:05AM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
> I think that David's idea has some promise now. Create a new branch, with a
> version that's unique to this branch.
\version "9.999.9" ?
> When the patch is reviewed, and everything is ready to push, do some sort of
> git grep
On 7/15/10 8:41 AM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 02:45:41PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
> For the record, I'd call the shell script 15 minutes (Carl already
> posted the commands, but I suspect it can be done in a "cleaner"
> manner with reba
On 7/15/10 6:45 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 08:56:25PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>>> Carl Sorensen writes:
>>>
The version number of a build from the current git will be higher than
the last release version. This particular
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 02:45:41PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > I think that writing a 5-10 line shell script for easily updating
> > version numbers in a patch/commit would be much less work than
> > checking all the above, though.
>
> The idea was to create a sch
Graham Percival writes:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 08:56:25PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Carl Sorensen writes:
>>
>> > The version number of a build from the current git will be higher than
>> > the last release version. This particular patch uses changes in .cc
>> > code, so it needs to be
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 08:56:25PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Carl Sorensen writes:
>
> > The version number of a build from the current git will be higher than
> > the last release version. This particular patch uses changes in .cc
> > code, so it needs to be rebuilt, and hence will always b
Carl Sorensen writes:
> The version number of a build from the current git will be higher than
> the last release version. This particular patch uses changes in .cc
> code, so it needs to be rebuilt, and hence will always be a version
> ahead of the current git.
That sounds like the version num
On 7/14/10 11:12 AM, "Joe Neeman" wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7/14/10 4:21 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>>
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
>> Am Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2010, um 08:47:17 schrieb David Kastrup:
Graham Percival w
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>
>
>
> On 7/14/10 4:21 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
>
> > Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> >
> >> Am Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2010, um 08:47:17 schrieb David Kastrup:
> >>> Graham Percival writes:
> But if you're working on a separate branch (as
On 7/14/10 2:46 AM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 08:47:17AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>>
>>> If you have the patch as a single file, then (in vim) it would be
>>> %s/2.13.28/2.13.29/g
>>>
>>> But if you're working on a separate branch (as
On 7/14/10 4:21 AM, "David Kastrup" wrote:
> Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
>
>> Am Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2010, um 08:47:17 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>> Graham Percival writes:
But if you're working on a separate branch (as is right and proper
for a major change), then I'm not certain how
Reinhold Kainhofer writes:
> Am Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2010, um 08:47:17 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Graham Percival writes:
>> > But if you're working on a separate branch (as is right and proper
>> > for a major change), then I'm not certain how to go about it. I'm
>> > looking forward to opinions.
Am Mittwoch, 14. Juli 2010, um 08:47:17 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Graham Percival writes:
> > But if you're working on a separate branch (as is right and proper
> > for a major change), then I'm not certain how to go about it. I'm
> > looking forward to opinions.
>
> I don't see a problem here.
On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 08:47:17AM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
> Graham Percival writes:
>
> > If you have the patch as a single file, then (in vim) it would be
> > %s/2.13.28/2.13.29/g
> >
> > But if you're working on a separate branch (as is right and proper
> > for a major change), then I'm
Graham Percival writes:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 05:30:38PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> Because it changes the syntax, I need to change documentation text,
>> documentation examples in english, french, spanish, and german (plus
>> potentially in hungarian and japanese), documentation snippets
On 7/13/10 5:41 PM, "Graham Percival" wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 05:30:38PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
>> Because it changes the syntax, I need to change documentation text,
>> documentation examples in english, french, spanish, and german (plus
>> potentially in hungarian and japanese)
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 05:30:38PM -0600, Carl Sorensen wrote:
> Because it changes the syntax, I need to change documentation text,
> documentation examples in english, french, spanish, and german (plus
> potentially in hungarian and japanese), documentation snippets, regression
> tests, web examp
I appreciate the desire for frequent development releases, but there's got
to be some better way to work with this that I don't understand.
I'm trying to get a major patch approved that changes the syntax for
autobeaming.
Because it changes the syntax, I need to change documentation text,
documen
22 matches
Mail list logo
