Re: Getting rid of the msvc branch

[Stefano Lattarini]

Hi Peter, sorry for the delay.

On 03/08/2012 09:24 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-03-07 22:20:
>>
>> Let's hope we're out of this merging swamp now :-)
> 
> Indeed, but that reminds me, did we forget any other branches that should
> have gotten the same treatment?  E.g. yacc-work seems to merge maint once
> in a while,
>
Not anymore -- 'yacc-work' has been merged into master not too long ago, and,
differently from msvc, it has never been merged into maint nor branch-1.11; I
was planning to just deleted it once 1.12 was out ... but what the hell, its
tip can still be recovered from the last "Merge yacc-work into ..." commit (in
case we'll ever decide to merge it into maint as well), so I've just gone
ahead and removed the 'yacc-work' branch.

> so it might be good to fake the history (well, not really faking
> it, but almost) and do:
> 
> git checkout yacc-work
> git branch -f maint 94d56e80384e3ae80e2817aa12adae8ad7f3d1ed # before 
> msvc->maint merge
> git merge --log maint
> git branch -f maint 3a8146089834c5187d0b0795b9fa71a0f9bba132 # after 
> msvc->maint merge
> git merge --strategy=ours maint
> git branch -f maint remotes/origin/maint
> 
> before someone forgets all about this (I sure would like to forget about
> it) and merges maint as is.  What do you think?
>
See above.

> Perhaps end with another "git merge --log maint" to pick up the latest stuff
> while at it.
> 
> Any other branches that might merge maint?  Maybe merge yacc-work into
> yl-work-for-master and ylwrap-refactor after the above just to make sure
> they don't merge maint directly at some point in the future?
> 
The 'yl-work-for-master' was just a temporary branch used to simplify the
merge of yacc-work into master; it has already been deleted from the automake
official repository.  About the 'ylwrap-refactor' branch, I'm not yet sure
whether the changes in it are a good idea, so it's OK to keep it inactive for
now; if we ever resurrect it, we should merge 'master' into it as a first
step.

Oh, and since I was at it, I've noticed we had never converted the long-inactive
(12 years!) branches 'user-dep-gen-merge-branch' and 'user-dep-gen-branch' into
tags.  I've now done that as well.

Regards,
  Stefano