Corehackers, was Re: [PATCH] minimal := for Perl 5 blead

[Rafael Garcia-Suarez <rgarciasuarez@gmail.com>]

2009/7/9 Chip Salzenberg <chip@pobox.com>:
> The list version will be a bit more work, but this shows the basic principle
> is sound.  Also, I'm not sure we _need_ to support non-lexicals, but it's
> not that much extra work I expect; so why not?  A merge into 'corehackers'
> branch will happen when I think the code is basically ready for acceptance,
> along with the other changes in that branch.

So I had a look at "corehackers" and we mostly have merge commits in
there, have we not.
My suggestion would be to liberally use rebase instead, just for the
sake of being easier to review.
The only true commits we have here are :

commit 539d663c7880438285b531e393a99275c18a6b8d
Author: nperez <nperez@cpan.org>
Date:   Tue Jun 23 20:32:31 2009 -0500

    Make INSTALL -Duserelocatableinc aware

which wasn't sent to P5P (why?)

And two commits by Ricardo :
68946cfe75a1cfb6fd94602ab3a294181ecc7120
23275324673f67387a8d7c5285cee69cb0c379fa
that actually contains changes that are also in this commit which is
already in blead :

commit 6fbdb1ccd21ee1b840432cead5fae6bef06cf2c8
Author: Ricardo SIGNES <rjbs@cpan.org>
Date:   Sun May 24 10:11:26 2009 +0200

    perlpodspec corrections

So I'll cherry-pick 539d663c7880438 in blead, and then I guess that
the corehackers tip can be reset to blead, for clarity's sake ?

---

Follow-Ups from:

Chip Salzenberg <chip@pobox.com>

---

[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Top&Search][Original]

---