autoconf-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] m4sh: always re-exec with $CONFIG_SHELL, if it's set


From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: [PATCH] m4sh: always re-exec with $CONFIG_SHELL, if it's set
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:44:27 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.6.5; i686; ; )

On Wednesday 09 November 2011, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/08/11 11:54, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
> >> I'd rather avoid a branch if I could,
> >> >
> > Why?  That is the best way to keep the work public and going, without 
> > risking to destabilize the code base.
> 
> My experience with branches in Emacs (a much more-heavily-maintained
> project) is that their advantages in stability are often outweighed by
> their disadvantages in maintenance overhead.
>
Yes, but my intention is for "my" branch to be a short-lived one (i.e.,
we will work on it, test it, polish it, and after a month or two decide
if is should be merged into master or scrapped).  The maintainance
overhead should just be temporary.

> There's no real problem if a branch is used by just one developer (as
> this is logically equivalent to a private copy), nor if a set of
> developers works exclusively in a branch (this is rarer, but it can
> work), but there is a real hassle if stuff needs to be shared among
> branches.
>
I don't see how this could be a problem here: we will just keep master
merged into the new branch, to avoid problems with synchronization and
spurious conflicts.  This is IMHO the way to proceed with independent
topic branches (like this one).  True, problems can arise if there are
different topic branches that are conflictual or subtly inter-dependent;
but this is clearly not the case here.  Also, autoconf is not being
heavily worked on at the moment, so the risk of extra churn and real
conflicts is basically zero.

> In this particular case, if you want to create a branch that (presumably)
> just you will use, and you're doing it to publish your work, that'd be OK.
>
> (Maybe you can take over the 'experimental' branch, which
> hasn't been used since 1999....)
> One thing that'd be helpful is to put the four issues mentioned in your
> previous message into the branch somewhere, so that other developers are
> reminded of pending problems.
>
Consider that my intention is to have those problems worked out pretty
soon; as I said, I'm aiming at having a short-lived topic branch.
Still, amending the patch to add a pointer to our discussion in the
ChangeLog entry might be worthwhile after all.

> And thanks for looking into the problem, by the way!
> 
And thank you for the feedback.

Regards,
  Stefano



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]