> Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > "Page, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | >
> | > | Gaby,
> | > |
> | > | Are you willing to give Waldek the "go ahead" to commit the
> | > | following patch?
> | >
> | > Yes.
> | > During the conversion, I thought I agreed with this renaming you
> | > proposed.
> | >
> |
> | I waited for:
> |
> | http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2006-11/msg00294.html
>
> I agree with the sentiment of not rmoving gloss.text.
>
> Please include explanation in pamphlets so as not to delay patch
> review.
>
> | I tested file renaming from
> |
> | http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2006-11/msg00297.html
> |
> | only with patch 2006-11/msg00294 which removes second copy of 'util.ht'.
> | I think that renaming from 2006-11/msg00297 should work even without
> | 2006-11/msg00294 applied, but I did not test that combination. Also
> | I having the to compies of 'util.ht' out of sync _may_ cause troubles
> | (I was hit by this).
>
Sorry, I do not get what you mean:
> Please let separate the patches:
Do you mean that I should test and apply renaming patch without
removing 'util.ht'? I really do not like this -- that would mean
patching both copies or leaving a potential bug.
> (1) one for renaming -- contains explanations
> (2) one for deletiing the redundant file -- also must contain
> explanation of why.
>
So you want something like:
: We messed up. We hade the rule:
:
: <old rule>
:
: We should not try to install two source files into single location,
: so we removed the rule.
I find such "explanation" silly: we have version control and change
logs to keep history. And does not explain anything about the system
_after_ the fix is applied.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
