Kevin Ryde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I did the dreaded merge. The 1.8 branch now has a tag
Thanks, this is good news! ;-)
Ludovic.
___
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
I did the dreaded merge. The 1.8 branch now has a tag
branch_release-1-8_last-merged-to-head
as described in the cvs manual, ready for the next merge.
You can see the 1.8 to head diff with
cvs diff -r branch_release-1-8 -r HEAD
The current differences are just version number
Hi,
Marius Vollmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It wasn't really planned that way. We did it differently in 1.6 vs
HEAD, where we applied patches to both branches simultaneously by
hand, and we might switch to that mode once HEAD has suffifiently
diverted from the 1.8 branch.
Hmm, sorry for
Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just a heads-up: until I get to any work that isn't appropriate for
the 1.8 branch, I'm planning to make all my commits to the 1.8 branch
only, on the assumption that we will do something later to copy those
changes to CVS head.
Yes, that's how it is
Hi,
Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Who said that HEAD was abandoned?
Sorry, that was inappropriately worded. I was referring to this:
[...] I'm planning to make all my commits to the 1.8 branch only, on
the assumption that we will do something later to copy those changes
to CVS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
Sorry, that was inappropriately worded. I was referring to this:
[...] I'm planning to make all my commits to the 1.8 branch only, on
the assumption that we will do something later to copy those changes
to CVS head.
In particular the word
Neil Jerram [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. Because it was forked before the 1.8 release, it doesn't contain
markers in the NEWS or ChangeLogs for when the release happened.
A merge can/will bring those across. I think they should be there,
but maybe they're deliberately only on the branch
