On 12/22/2011 10:54 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-12-22 09:41: >> On 12/22/2011 08:26 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> >>> Since the msvc branch has been merged into both branch-1.11 and master, >>> it seems natural to also merge it into maint. No? >>> >> I'd rather not. First, it wouldn't be useful, since we do 1.11.x maintenance >> releases from branch-1.11 only, we plan to do the next 1.12 release from >> master, and both of these branches already contain the features from msvc. > > I'm ok with that. However, ... > > [SNIP good explanation] > I've verified what you said by experimenting with a fresh automake.git clone, and indeed you are right. So sorry for the confusion, and thanks for correcting me.
Still, even without the merge conflicts I had (erroneously) predicted, a serious problem would remain with the msvc->maint merge, that is ... >> ... worse, the code in maint would end up having a behaviour more similar to >> that of the next major version than to that of the next maintenance version. >> We could backport the hacks for 1.11.2 into maint, and confuse the >> already-too-messy automake history even more. Neither of these two >> possibility >> should particularly appealing to me, given that in the end they do not offer >> any real advantage anyway. > > This is a conclusion from your above faulty assumption, I believe, > It seems to me that the part of my argumentations quoted above is still correct; could you explain in more details why do you think it is wrong? Thanks. > But it was just a suggestion. If you don't want it, then I won't insist. > Regards, Stefano
