develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from May 2008

Re: [patch@33919] Module build changes for VMS

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Ken Williams
Date:
May 30, 2008 00:03
Subject:
Re: [patch@33919] Module build changes for VMS
Message ID:
6a7ee8cc0805300003r1c267731qf4d2ec044f5b3256@mail.gmail.com
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...

 -Ken

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About