Re: another merge from 1.8

[Neil Jerram]

Kevin Ryde <address@hidden> writes:

> Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

[about an IA64 HP-UX fix...]

>> Have you already done the merge of these changes to 1.8,
>
> No.
>
>> or should I do that?
>
> Yes please.

I've done this now.

One detail of the merging...  I gather we're preferring to merge
ChangeLog fragments directly, so as to minimize the diffs between the
ChangeLogs in two branches, rather than say inserting the relevant
entry at the top of the ChangeLog in the target branch.

This seems fine to me, but it does mean we lose info about when the
change was actually added to the target branch.  So to remedy that
I've added a note, making an entry read like this:

2006-10-25  Neil Jerram  <address@hidden>

        (Merged from CVS HEAD on 2007-01-28.)
        
        IA64 HP-UX patch from Hrvoje Nikšić.  (Thanks!)
        
        * configure.in: New check for uca lib (needed for IA64 on HP-UX).

Then only the added note line shows up as a diff.

If that sounds good, it would make sense for us all to do this when
merging.

I also had to specify a new encoding for the 1.8 ChangeLogs, and
guessed utf-8.  I'm afraid I don't really understand this area, so
please shout if that was wrong.

>>> * Is the readline "new-input-prompt" bit meant to be in 1.8?
>>
>> That one's debatable.  It seems on reflection that the change wasn't
>> directly related to the reported (by Jon Wilson) problem.  So it
>> should probably be considered an enhancement, not a bugfix - hence not
>> for 1.8.
>
> I think modest enhancements are definite 1.8 material, no need to wait
> the 3 years for a head release, not for bits that are safe and self
> contained.

I agree - if we can't manage less than 3 years.  I'd prefer to have
more frequent releases and better release machinery though.  I'm going
to try working on that for a while.

Regards,
     Neil