Re: another merge from 1.8

[Kevin Ryde]

Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:
>
> 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,

Yep.

> This seems fine to me, but it does mean we lose info about when the
> change was actually added to the target branch.

Shouldn't matter, usually, hopefully.

>       (Merged from CVS HEAD on 2007-01-28.)

Sounds fine for a back-merge like this (I wouldn't see a need in a
forward merge though).

> I also had to specify a new encoding for the 1.8 ChangeLogs,

Is that when you let emacs do a merge or update?  The same happened to
me and it offered some strange diffs.  Ludovic put the right local
var, but I suspect emacs doesn't look at it on the first C-x v v that
brings it into the working copy.