Arash Esbati writes:
>> So I confirmed my deletion with "git rm Makefile.in" in order to
>> resolve the conflict and commit and push the merge.
>
> Ah, this was not clear to me. So on the main branch, I do "git rm
> Makefile.in" and that resolves the conflict, right?. I will try that
> next
Tassilo Horn writes:
> Well, you added style/amsrefs.el to Makefile.in in 61f8825c on master
> but I've deleted Makefile.in on main since there we use GNUmakefile.
> And in that, we simply use wildcards instead of enumerating all style
> files.
Thanks, this part was clear to me.
> So I
Arash Esbati writes:
> Thanks, I updated NEWS.org and pushed. Then I did:
>
> • $ git switch main
> • $ git merge origin/master and get the following:
>
> CONFLICT (modify/delete): Makefile.in deleted in HEAD and modified in
> origin/master. Version origin/master of Makefile.in left in tree.
>
Ikumi Keita writes:
> Now bug#70811 is resolved. I think we can go now.
Thanks, I updated NEWS.org and pushed. Then I did:
• $ git switch main
• $ git merge origin/master and get the following:
CONFLICT (modify/delete): Makefile.in deleted in HEAD and modified in
origin/master. Version
> Arash Esbati writes:
> Ok, thanks. I think we'll wait until the patch for bug#70811 is
> installed and then we can start the release process. Unless I'm missing
> something?
Now bug#70811 is resolved. I think we can go now.
Bye,
Ikumi Keita
#StandWithUkraine #StopWarInUkraine
#Gaza
Paul Nelson writes:
> It looks like I've gone a solid week now without submitting any
> patches, which suggests that things are now a "go" on my end for
> bumping the version.
Ok, thanks. I think we'll wait until the patch for bug#70811 is
installed and then we can start the release process.
>
>
> @Paul: Do you have any other patches pending? I think you're also
> waiting for 14.0.5 in order to start the ELPA release of your packages,
> right?
>
> Best, Arash
>
It looks like I've gone a solid week now without submitting any patches,
which suggests that things are now a "go" on my
> Great, bring 'em on :-)
I sent a couple just now. I have a couple more ready to go, but they
would likely produce conflicts unless the submitted patches are
accepted exactly as is, so I'll wait.
Thanks, best,
Paul
___
bug-auctex mailing list
> Arash Esbati writes:
> Thanks Keita. Can you in future also add/amend the bug number to the
> commit message, please? It makes it easier to search for a bug inside
> Git.
Oh, sorry. I forgot to fix up the commit messages to include the bug
number for recent commits. :-(
Regards,
Ikumi
Paul Nelson writes:
> Yes and yes. I have three further minor patches, one of which builds
> on #70525, the other two of which are very minor. Could easily send
> these tomorrow, for instance.
Great, bring 'em on :-)
___
bug-auctex mailing list
Ikumi Keita writes:
> Thanks, I committed to the master branch and pushed. I'll close this
> bug.
Thanks Keita. Can you in future also add/amend the bug number to the
commit message, please? It makes it easier to search for a bug inside
Git.
TIA. Best, Arash
Ikumi Keita writes:
>> Thanks for looking at this. The new workflow (for the time being) is
>> actually the old one: Push all changes to the master branch, and we can
>> merge that onto main when needed. The only minor change is probably to
>> add noteworthy changes to NEWS.org and not to
Hi Arash,
> Arash Esbati writes:
> Thanks for looking at this. The new workflow (for the time being) is
> actually the old one: Push all changes to the master branch, and we can
> merge that onto main when needed. The only minor change is probably to
> add noteworthy changes to NEWS.org
> @Paul: Do you have any other patches pending? I think you're also
> waiting for 14.0.5 in order to start the ELPA release of your packages,
> right?
>
> Best, Arash
Yes and yes. I have three further minor patches, one of which builds
on #70525, the other two of which are very minor. Could
Hi Keita,
Ikumi Keita writes:
> The proposed function seems reasonable enough and I think AUCTeX can
> accept it.
>
> To Tassilo & Arash: I'm not sure the new workflow after the inclusion of
> the main branch. Should I commit new changeset to main branch instead of
> master branch now? And
Hi Paul,
> Paul Nelson writes:
> I think that a function as in the attached patch, which wraps the
> function TeX--master-output-dir introduced along with TeX-output-dir,
> would be a useful addition to the public-facing API. For example, I
> would use it in both of the packages that I
I think that a function as in the attached patch, which wraps the
function TeX--master-output-dir introduced along with TeX-output-dir,
would be a useful addition to the public-facing API. For example, I
would use it in both of the packages that I recently shared on the
devel list (these would
17 matches
Mail list logo
