Re: ACT tree new files

[Laurent Guerby <guerby at acm dot org>]

On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 20:30, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > My reasoning behind an early addition is that it makes
> > later bulk merge patches easier to make since you don't
> > have to find the set of files to add each time which
> > will either be time consuming trial and error, human reasoning or
> > you have to spend a time to write a semi automated tool.
> 
> It will definitely be better to delay adding these files until we have
> completed the current merge operation, since it will just complicate
> that merge. It really is not a good idea to simply copy files for the
> sake of copying them without understanding the reasons why they were
> not there in the first place. 

I must admit I don't understand your point. What the merge will do
is just to add all these files, you cannot merge say scn.ads
without adding scng.* which in turn will require merging
errout.* which will need adding erroutc.*, etc...

One missing in your patchset, and you're back to reboostrap.
There are more than 600 files to merge, missing files
can cost a lot of time.

> It certainly will not make things easier!

...

> Are there any files there where for some reason you think there is a day
> to day urgency to add them?

There's of course no urgency, in answer to my question
about outside help, Geert proposed to accept prepared
patches, adding files was looking like an easy and useful
step for the rest of process.

I assume that Geert will have to do all the work then.

-- 
Laurent Guerby <guerby at acm dot org>