On 10/04/2016 03:05:33 AM Tue, Pawel Salek wrote:
Den 04.10.2016 01:36:33 skrev Peter Bloomfield:
Hi Albrecht:
On 10/02/2016 08:22:29 AM Sun, Albrecht Dreß wrote:
...any opinions/news about these two? Still anyone interested in them? :-/
<https://mail.gnome.org/archives/balsa-list/2016-September/msg00013.html>
<https://mail.gnome.org/archives/balsa-list/2016-September/msg00014.html>
Yeah, sorry about the lack of activity! Things got kinda crazy on several
fronts :-)
Both patches look fine, I really will commit shortly.
We need to sort out the git structure. The translators only recently got notification
that gtk3 is the active branch, so translation stalled for a long time. It's still
confusing to them; see
<URL:https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-i18n/2016-September/msg00198.html>.
I propose that we create a 2.24 stable branch off master, and then merge gtk3 into
master. I've tried it, and it's not pretty, but should be feasible.
Is
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8762601/how-do-i-rename-my-git-master-branch-to-release
of any help?
I tried to find a shortcut, but to keep the commit history it seems we actually
need to do the merge. Right now I'm trying, in master:
git merge -Xtheirs gtk3
and then to clean up:
git diff gtk3 > ../merge-cleanup.diff
followed by editing ../merge-cleanup.diff so as not to lose some license
improvements, and finally patching it (in reverse). It gives me a master that
is functionally equivalent to the gtk3 branch. Does that seem reasonable?
Peter
_______________________________________________
balsa-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/balsa-list
