[Xorg] RELEASE-1 merged into CURRENT

[Egbert Eich]

Keith Packard writes:
 > 
 > Around 19 o'clock on Apr 15, Egbert Eich wrote:
 > 
 > > 1. It complains about unbalanced parentheses in some C files because they
 > >    are written uncleanly and have #if statements across group boundaries
 > >    :-((
 > 
 > I suspect we can live with that...
 > 
 > > 2. It modifies every ChangeLog file it finds in the tree. That's probably
 > >    not what we want. Especially not for those in extras/
 > >    As it will only thouch these if anything in the tree below the directory
 > >    they are in happens this won't occur very often.
 > 
 > Ack!  That should be fixed.
 > 
 > > 3. I cases like this merge the list of files that were changed is rather
 > >    long and not suitable. 
 > 
 > Yeah, we should encourage people to elide the file list when appropriate.

;-) Right, especially when doing a merge.

 > 
 > > 4. I would propose that every branch starts a new ChangeLog which then
 > >    gets merged when the branch gets merged.
 > 
 > I guess I don't understand why this is useful; the ChangeLog merging is 
 > then entirely manual instead of automated by CVS, and people have to 
 > "know" to do the merge and delete the old ChangeLog-branch file when they merge 
 > back to HEAD.  The more manual steps required to merge, the more likely 
 > one or more will be missed...

Well, we may see stuff go into branches which may never go into the
trunk. Therefore I'd think this is confusing. OK, maybe branches
don't need their own file but can use the one that was there at
the branch point. However we will see conflicts after the merge
anyhow as both files evolve independently. This will have to be 
resolved manually.

 > 
 > >    I don't know if we should keep the dates in chronological order or
 > >    if it is better to mark by indentation the entries that refer to a 
 > >    merged branch. That's what I currently did.
 > 
 > Hmm.  I like how this provides a visual representation of how 'HEAD' was
 > affected, but this does kinda require that the changes to branches be kept
 > separate until merged back to HEAD, which I don't like.

Not really. You will get a conflict when you merge. This conflict
will have to be dealt with manually anyway.

 > 
 > We could hack prepare-ChangeLog.pl to add the branch tag to the log 
 > message, and could even create a script that helped prepare a ChangeLog 

That's a good idea.

 > entry for the merge process.  That would leave your nice hierarchical 
 > ChangeLog format and not require separate ChangeLog files for each branch.
 > 

Right. I wouldn't mind to have all this automated either.
However my Perl skills are limited and I'm a little reluctand
to do this in awk.
Any volunteer?

Cheers,
	Egbert.