5:48 p.m.
ClamAV 0.93
Uwe Brauer <oub(a)mat.ucm.es> writes:
Hello
It is true (finally), the problem of the generation of the correct
auto-autoloads files is solved, even without applying a patch to
XEmacs.rules; a thousand thanks to Mats for his help.
I committed the new version right now into CVS.
There have been no structural changes that I am aware of between 11.84
and 11.85 (released five months ago), so I think it should be
straightforward to use the latest released AUCTeX version instead.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
6:52 a.m.
New subject: auctex 11.84 submitted in the CVS tree, *no* branch needed
ClamAV 0.93
David Kastrup writes:
Uwe Brauer <oub(a)mat.ucm.es> writes:
> I committed the new version right now into CVS.
There have been no structural changes that I am aware of between 11.84
and 11.85 (released five months ago), so I think it should be
straightforward to use the latest released AUCTeX version instead.
The AUCTeX side of things very likely is, but if you've been following
our little comedy you'll realize that CVS isn't. We'll update before
the public release, I'm sure.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:56 a.m.
New subject: auctex 11.84 submitted in the CVS tree, *no* branch needed
"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org> writes:
David Kastrup writes:
> Uwe Brauer <oub(a)mat.ucm.es> writes:
> > I committed the new version right now into CVS.
>
> There have been no structural changes that I am aware of between 11.84
> and 11.85 (released five months ago), so I think it should be
> straightforward to use the latest released AUCTeX version instead.
The AUCTeX side of things very likely is, but if you've been following
our little comedy you'll realize that CVS isn't.
Well, then use git rather than CVS. Check in the source tarballs into
one branch, check in the current CVS into a branch starting at the 11.84
checkin, then "cherry-pick" or "merge" the 11.85 checkin into the
branch
for the CVS. Or the other way round, depending on what makes for the
least messy manual merge resolution.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
10:36 p.m.
New subject: SCM for packages (was auctex 11.84 submitted in the CVS tree, *no* branch needed)
>>>> "David" == David Kastrup
<dak(a)gnu.org> writes:
David> Well, then use git rather than CVS.
Speaking of git...
Someone (Stephen?) polled the package maintainers awhile back about
possibly moving from CVS to Mercurial. (From Stephen's comments I
gather he likes git better, but Mercurial is what holds the 21.5 tree.)
I would love to get the packages off of CVS. Stephen, is there anything
I can do to help with that?
mike
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
9:15 a.m.
New subject: SCM for packages (was auctex 11.84 submitted in the CVS tree, *no* branch needed)
Mike Kupfer writes:
I would love to get the packages off of CVS. Stephen, is there
anything
I can do to help with that?
Talk to Mike Sperber who is the administrator of the XEmacs project on
Debian alioth, and Aidan Kehoe who has also been pushing for this.
However, I'm not sure how this will work for the other 40 or so
package maintainers. I'll see what I can do about getting in touch
with them.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
1:05 p.m.
New subject: SCM for packages
* "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen(a)xemacs.org>:
Hi!
However, I'm not sure how this will work for the other 40 or so
package maintainers. I'll see what I can do about getting in touch
with them.
As for me, I'll have to rewrite the package-release scripts to work with
mercurial. Obviously, they are CVS aware at the moment. This will take
some time, so it's possible the package-release process is a little bit
hampered by such a move. But I don't object it.
norbert.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
11:49 a.m.
New subject: SCM for packages
Mike Kupfer <mike.kupfer(a)xemacs.org> writes:
I would love to get the packages off of CVS. Stephen, is there
anything
I can do to help with that?
What would help would be if you could check out the Mercurial forest
extension, and see if it fits our needs. Also, a script to import our
CVS into a Mercurial forest would basically zip it up, I think.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:24 a.m.
New subject: SCM for packages
>>>> Michael wrote:
Michael> What would help would be if you could check out the Mercurial
Michael> forest extension, and see if it fits our needs. Also, a
Michael> script to import our CVS into a Mercurial forest would
Michael> basically zip it up, I think.
Getting the full repository for all packages is probably not what all
users wants.
Is there some way to just get the tip from mercurial? eg only the
latest sources and not the whole repo? I know that the .hg-folder can
be deleted to get that effect but can you skip downloading it
altogether. I have tried to RTFM but found nothing like this.
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:24 a.m.
New subject: SCM for packages
Mats Lidell <matsl(a)xemacs.org> writes:
>>>>> Michael wrote:
Michael> What would help would be if you could check out the Mercurial
Michael> forest extension, and see if it fits our needs. Also, a
Michael> script to import our CVS into a Mercurial forest would
Michael> basically zip it up, I think.
Getting the full repository for all packages is probably not what all
users wants.
Is there some way to just get the tip from mercurial? eg only the
latest sources and not the whole repo? I know that the .hg-folder can
be deleted to get that effect but can you skip downloading it
altogether. I have tried to RTFM but found nothing like this.
The version history itself is not the problem---Mercurial is very
efficient at storing that. (That said, the Mercurial people have a plan
to allow only storing recent history.) I think what's more relevant is
not having to get all the packages (and lump their revision history
together). Mercurial forests do this, but I haven't had time to
investigate in depth.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
11:10 a.m.
New subject: SCM for packages
Dropping David, who can pick up the thread on -beta if he wants to.
Mats Lidell writes:
Is there some way to just get the tip from mercurial? eg only the
latest sources and not the whole repo?
This is a bad idea. Bazaar has this feature, they call it
"lightweight checkouts". It adds a lot of complexity to the
implementation, and what is worse, it seems to confuse users.
Basically, not worth it for the purpose of casual checkouts.
(Developers use it because it's the only way to share the repo in
Bazaar, and they have pretty sucky space efficiency, so it ends up
saving a lot of space if you have multiple branches checked out.)
And unnecessary, IMO. As Mike points out, Mercurial history storage
really is efficient. Here's a du for my current XEmacs workspace,
with almost 4500 changesets:
chibi:xemacs steve$ du -sk . .hg ./+*
230868 .
12296 .hg
4 .hgignore
12 .hgtags
51096 ./+build
41860 ./+gtk
chibi:xemacs steve$ find . -name '*.elc' | xargs du -ck
4664 total
chibi:xemacs steve$ find . -name '*.info' | xargs du -ck
964 total
So the working tree takes up 110 MB (13MB of Lisp), C build products
40~50MB per build, Lisp and Info build products about 5MB per build,
and Mercurial repo data only about 12MB.
I don't see any reason why the packages would show a metadata ratio of
as much as 20% of the source tree, while build products run about 40%
for Lisp. Surely that's acceptable?
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
11:13 p.m.
New subject: SCM for packages
>>>> Stephen wrote:
Stephen> I don't see any reason why the packages would show a metadata
Stephen> ratio of as much as 20% of the source tree, while build
Stephen> products run about 40% for Lisp. Surely that's acceptable?
Yes. Thanks for the analysis. That is acceptable!
Yours
--
%% Mats
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
12:01 p.m.
New subject: SCM for packages (was auctex 11.84 submitted in the CVS tree, *no* branch needed)
Ar an cúigiú lá is fiche de mí Iúil, scríobh Mike Kupfer:
Someone (Stephen?) polled the package maintainers awhile back about
possibly moving from CVS to Mercurial. (From Stephen's comments I
gather he likes git better, but Mercurial is what holds the 21.5 tree.)
I would love to get the packages off of CVS. Stephen, is there anything
I can do to help with that?
I did the polling; we intend to move to Mercurial, using the forest
extension. I’m working on this locally, but don’t have an ETA at the
moment. Mike Sperber, as I understand it the automatic propagation of
Mercurial changes to CVS shouldn’t be hard; is this correct?
--
¿Dónde estará ahora mi sobrino Yoghurtu Nghé, que tuvo que huir
precipitadamente de la aldea por culpa de la escasez de rinocerontes?
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
7:27 p.m.
New subject: auctex 11.84 submitted in the CVS tree, *no* branch needed
Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
David Kastrup writes:
> Uwe Brauer <oub(a)mat.ucm.es> writes:
> > I committed the new version right now into CVS.
>
> There have been no structural changes that I am aware of between 11.84
> and 11.85 (released five months ago), so I think it should be
> straightforward to use the latest released AUCTeX version instead.
The AUCTeX side of things very likely is, but if you've been following
our little comedy you'll realize that CVS isn't. We'll update before
the public release, I'm sure.
_______
right, since we did all the testing with 11.84, I wanted to have that,
hm, successfully submitted
(but CVS is more complicated sometimes....)
before switching to 11.85. which should then be straightforward.
Uwe
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta
5953
days inactive
5969
days old
12 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Aidan Kehoe -
David Kastrup -
Michael Sperber -
Mike Kupfer -
Norbert Koch -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
The XEmacs Package Smoketest -
Uwe Brauer