> OK, I don't want Thomas disappointed.
Thanks. I think ;)
> We have the changes for alignment
> I made, and some changes for optimization in certain places, and the
> Uncle George patch, and the removal of the bad comment in the template
> file.
> My recommendation(hold on to your seats) is to take the current cvs
> tree, patch it with Uncle George's patches and any others needed, and
> release a 6.5.2 release that addresses alpha. We can back-patch 6.5.2,
> but there is really no reason to do that. There is really nothing
> 'special' in the current tree. In fact, the most risky of them are the
> alpha ones, and since that is what we are trying to fix, we are not
> adding any new problems to the code.
OK. Another tack would be to do what you suggest on the main tree, and
then backpatch using diffs on the entire tree. Then we can release on
the v6.5.x branch as we would have liked.
I'll be happy to attempt the backpatching, and if I fail then we can
proceed with a v6.5.2 release based on the main tree. But I'm more
comfortable knowing that we've inspected every patch, and included
only those which address something significant.
Does this sound unrealistic? I'm guessing that the backpatching can
happen fairly easily, but I don't understand why someone just reported
3.5MB of diffs. Hmm, how much of those diffs are on the docs tree? I
did make a bunch of changes to get the man pages going, and they
aren't relevant for v6.5.2 which could be limited to the src/ tree.
- Thomas
--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California