Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2008
On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 10:13 PM, Craig A. Berry <craig.a.berry@gmail.com> wrote: > After doing some testing with my own revision of the third version of > this patch against blead, I belatedly realized that much of it has > already been applied to the development stream of Module::Build, > available via: > > % svn co http://svn.perl.org/modules/Module-Build/trunk mb > > which is rather far out of synch with blead. Then there is a separate > branch of Module::Build that was made up to match what shipped with > 5.10: > > % svn co http://svn.perl.org/modules/Module-Build/branches/perl-5.10 mb510 > > This second branch is fairly close to blead, though there are some > differences in the pod and tests. Oy, how I long for perforce's integration tracking. If the second branch is close to blead, that probably just means M::B in blead hasn't gotten any attention since January, which is the last time that branch was modified. Recall that some of the differences between > So we have a three-way merge on our hands, or maybe "only" two-way if > we assume blead has everything the 5.10 branch of M::B has plus a > little bit more. Yeah, I think we can consider the 5.10 branch of M::B "dead", in the sense that no real development was ever done in it (only 1 change was ever committed, r10626, whose diff is only 162 lines long), and I think all changes therein that were considered valuable have already been integrated into the mainline. It might be worth hand-verifying this last assertion by more persons than myself though. > I think it's important that we not apply any more > patches for M::B to blead until we get things synched up -- the merge > will just get worse if we put it off. I would prefer to not apply any more M::B patches to blead unless they're integrating from the canonical M::B code. Sometimes the bleadkeepers are more responsive than I am, though, so that's likely why patches are routed there first sometimes... -KenThread Previous | Thread Next