This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: File missing from the git: texinfo/texinfo.tex
- From: Fred Cooke <fred dot cooke at gmail dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>, binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, GDB Development <gdb at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:55:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: File missing from the git: texinfo/texinfo.tex
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <201310231640 dot r9NGeOjY029105 at ignucius dot se dot axis dot com> <874n88dj74 dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com>
Redo it and maybe see if we can fix the discontinuity at the same
time? Maybe someone can take a look at the existing repo if you can
provide a hash/date/other identifier for the problem area, and find a
solution to use?
How about applying the texinfo to a temp branch and trying to weed out
other issues before going to the hassle, too?
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Tom Tromey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>>> "Hans-Peter" == Hans-Peter Nilsson <email@example.com> writes:
> Hans-Peter> Just a heads-up.
> Hans-Peter> Looks like at least one file didn't make it in the git
> Hans-Peter> conversion; worse, one needed by the src-release targets (which
> Hans-Peter> is used to build releases and snapshots): texinfo/texinfo.tex.
> Hans-Peter> This will cause problems with people's autotesters and snapshot
> Hans-Peter> creation. (Tom Tromey is alerted and on it; the git may have to
> Hans-Peter> be re-created or something like that.)
> I had put texinfo into the list of directories to remove before
> conversion. This caused the problem.
> I think there are two choices to fix it.
> One, fix my script and redo the conversion. This is easy, though (1) it
> takes quite a lot of time, (2) any git commits since the first
> conversion will have to be re-applied (there aren't many -- I can handle
> it), and (3) any work anybody else has done on a clone of the repository
> will have to be redone.
> The argument for this choice is mainly that it is more true to the
> history. E.g., with the current git repository you can't faithfully
> re-create old releases.
> Two, pretend the problem away and check in the file now.
> I don't really have a preference. However it would be good to decide
> soon. So, please send email today.