* [patch 0/3] readline-6.2 rebase
@ 2011-05-01 12:29 Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-09 17:00 ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-11 23:44 ` [commit] " Jan Kratochvil
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2011-05-01 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Hi,
the change is prepared with readable separate commits in the branch:
http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ArcherBranchManagement
archer-jankratochvil-readline62
as the patch itself is too huge to post for non-GIT accessible way one can
patch readline-6.2 by 001, move it to src/readline:
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/readline/readline-6.2.tar.gz
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/readline/readline-6.2-patches/readline62-001
And patch it by this [patch 1/3], patch [2/3] and patch [3/3].
There files were omitted from the readline-6.2 tree (like before):
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: history.0
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: history.dvi
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: history.html
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: history.info
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: history.pdf
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: history.ps
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: history_3.ps
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: readline.0
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: readline.dvi
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: readline.html
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: readline.info
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: readline.pdf
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: readline.ps
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: readline_3.ps
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: rluserman.dvi
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: rluserman.html
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: rluserman.info
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: rluserman.pdf
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: rluserman.ps
Only in readline-6.2-001/doc: texinfo.tex
Only in readline-6.2-001/examples: rlwrap-0.30.tar.gz
These file needs autotools rebuild, not included in these attached patches:
readline/configure needs rebuild.
readline/examples/rlfe/configure needs rebuild (it is not used, though).
gdb/config.in needs rebuild.
gdb/configure needs rebuild.
No regressions on {x86_64,x86_64-m32,i686}-fedora15-linux-gnu.
Other platforms would be nice to test.
Thanks,
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [patch 0/3] readline-6.2 rebase
2011-05-01 12:29 [patch 0/3] readline-6.2 rebase Jan Kratochvil
@ 2011-05-09 17:00 ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-11 6:04 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-11 23:44 ` [commit] " Jan Kratochvil
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2011-05-09 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: gdb-patches
>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
Jan> No regressions on {x86_64,x86_64-m32,i686}-fedora15-linux-gnu.
Jan> Other platforms would be nice to test.
FWIW I think this is the best time to check this in, because the release
branch has been made.
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [patch 0/3] readline-6.2 rebase
2011-05-09 17:00 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2011-05-11 6:04 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-11 16:36 ` Joel Brobecker
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2011-05-11 6:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Mon, 09 May 2011 19:00:13 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
> FWIW I think this is the best time to check this in, because the release
> branch has been made.
Do you think it should be checked in as separate patches (to unchanged
readline-6.2 with each of the patches applied afterwards) or as a single
commit?
The previous import was a single-commit one with sourceware patches already
contained:
commit c6fad60c72bac0b0ba1b7912f866caa3a6cb744c
Author: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
Date: Fri May 5 18:26:14 2006 +0000
Readline 5.1 import for HEAD.
Advantage of the single commit is it does not introduce intermedia regressions
which makes it compatible with `git bisect'. (OTOH git bisect has various
issues with building older snapshots on recent systems and also I am not sure
if all the multi-part patches are per-piece regression+buildability safe.)
Advantage of the multiple commits is sure more clear import for futher rebases
and reviews. Porting the readline-5.1 patchset was a bit of reverse
engineering with GIT.
(I am more for the latter choice now; despite I proposed the former before.)
Thanks,
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 0/3] readline-6.2 rebase
2011-05-11 6:04 ` Jan Kratochvil
@ 2011-05-11 16:36 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-05-11 17:15 ` Jan Kratochvil
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2011-05-11 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: Tom Tromey, gdb-patches
> Do you think it should be checked in as separate patches (to unchanged
> readline-6.2 with each of the patches applied afterwards) or as a single
> commit?
(just my 2 cents)
I'm sensitive to the 'git bisect' argument, and I think that it's easy
to recreate the local diff. Also, I think we've always submitted the
vast majority of changes we make to readline, so of the changes should
no longer be needed at the next update. So a single-commit would be
my prefered option.
But I don't have a strong opinion. A multi-commit would be fine as well.
Or we could cut the cake in the middle, and make 2 commits: one resetting
readline with no change, and then one commit with all our local changes.
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch 0/3] readline-6.2 rebase
2011-05-11 16:36 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2011-05-11 17:15 ` Jan Kratochvil
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2011-05-11 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: Tom Tromey, gdb-patches
On Wed, 11 May 2011 18:36:23 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> I'm sensitive to the 'git bisect' argument, and I think that it's easy
> to recreate the local diff. Also, I think we've always submitted the
> vast majority of changes we make to readline, so of the changes should
> no longer be needed at the next update. So a single-commit would be
> my prefered option.
OK, I will go with this single-commit way.
> But I don't have a strong opinion. A multi-commit would be fine as well.
> Or we could cut the cake in the middle, and make 2 commits: one resetting
> readline with no change, and then one commit with all our local changes.
TBH the two-commit way seems to me to have only disadvantages of both ways.
Thanks,
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [commit] Re: [patch 0/3] readline-6.2 rebase
2011-05-01 12:29 [patch 0/3] readline-6.2 rebase Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-09 17:00 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2011-05-11 23:44 ` Jan Kratochvil
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2011-05-11 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Hi,
therefore checked it in.
Thanks,
Jan
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2011-05/msg00076.html
CVSROOT: /cvs/src
Module name: src
Changes by: jkratoch@sourceware.org 2011-05-11 23:38:44
Modified files:
gdb : ChangeLog config.in configure configure.ac
gdb/doc : ChangeLog Makefile.in gdb.texinfo
gdb/tui : tui-io.c
readline : CHANGELOG CHANGES COPYING ChangeLog.gdb INSTALL
MANIFEST Makefile.in NEWS README aclocal.m4
ansi_stdlib.h bind.c callback.c chardefs.h
compat.c complete.c config.h.in configure
configure.in display.c emacs_keymap.c funmap.c
histexpand.c histfile.c histlib.h history.c
history.h histsearch.c input.c isearch.c
keymaps.c keymaps.h kill.c macro.c mbutil.c
misc.c nls.c parens.c posixdir.h posixjmp.h
posixstat.h readline.c readline.h rlconf.h
rldefs.h rlmbutil.h rlprivate.h rlshell.h
rlstdc.h rltty.c rltty.h rltypedefs.h
rlwinsize.h savestring.c search.c shell.c
signals.c tcap.h terminal.c text.c tilde.c
tilde.h undo.c util.c vi_keymap.c vi_mode.c
xmalloc.c xmalloc.h
readline/doc : ChangeLog.gdb Makefile.in fdl.texi history.3
history.texi hstech.texi hsuser.texi readline.3
rlman.texi rltech.texi rluser.texi
rluserman.texi texi2dvi texi2html version.texi
readline/examples: ChangeLog.gdb Inputrc Makefile.in
excallback.c fileman.c histexamp.c manexamp.c
readlinebuf.h rl.c rlcat.c rltest.c
rlversion.c
readline/examples/rlfe: ChangeLog Makefile.in config.h.in
configure configure.in extern.h os.h
pty.c rlfe.c
readline/shlib : Makefile.in
readline/support: config.guess config.rpath config.sub mkdirs
mkdist shlib-install shobj-conf wcwidth.c
Added files:
readline : patchlevel posixselect.h xfree.c
readline/examples: rlevent.c
readline/examples/autoconf: BASH_CHECK_LIB_TERMCAP
RL_LIB_READLINE_VERSION
wi_LIB_READLINE
readline/examples/rlfe: ChangeLog.gdb
Removed files:
readline/doc : inc-hist.texinfo
Log message:
Imported readline 6.2, and upstream patch 001.
[patch 0/3] readline-6.2 rebase
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-05/msg00003.html
[patch 1/3] readline-6.2: Merge of already posted patches
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-05/msg00004.html
=
[Bug-readline] [RFC/readline] bind.c, rl_function_dumper, Free allocated
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-readline/2011-03/msg00000.html
[Bug-readline] [patch] Fix underquotation in readline/examples/rlfe/conf
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-readline/2011-04/msg00001.html
[Bug-readline] [patch] Makefile.in htm<->html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-readline/2011-04/msg00002.html
Re: [Bug-readline] [patch] Makefile.in dependency: callback.o: xmalloc.h
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-readline/2011-04/msg00004.html
[Bug-readline] [patch] Remove . from the VPATH directive
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-readline/2011-04/msg00005.html
Eli Zaretskii's __MSDOS__ / __GO32__ / __MINGW32__ / __DJGPP__ stuff:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2011-04/msg00002.html
Jan Kratochvil's patch for FSF GDB tree local-specific changes:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2011-04/msg00006.html
Preservation of existing ChangeLog.gdb files, their updates.
[patch 2/3] readline-6.2: Workaround "ask" regression
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-05/msg00005.html
[patch 3/3] readline-6.2: Revert 5.x compat., apply 6.x compat.
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-05/msg00006.html
[patch 4/3] readline-6.2: Substitute inc-hist.texinfo
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-05/msg00010.html
readline/
Workaround gdb.base/completion.exp regression on readline-6.2.
* complete.c (get_y_or_n): Disable the return on RL_STATE_CALLBACK.
Imported readline 6.2, and upstream patch 001.
* configure: Regenerate.
readline/doc/
* hsuser.texi (Using History Interactively): Disable !BashFeatures
@defcodeindex. Make the `Programming with GNU History' reference
external.
* inc-hist.texinfo: Remove.
Imported readline 6.2, and upstream patch 001.
readline/examples/
Imported readline 6.2, and upstream patch 001.
readline/examples/rlfe/
Imported readline 6.2, and upstream patch 001.
gdb/
* config.in: Regenerate.
* configure: Regenerate.
* configure.ac <--with-system-readline> (for readline_echoing_p):
Remove the test.
* tui/tui-io.c (tui_old_readline_echoing_p): Rename to ...
(tui_old_rl_echoing_p): ... here.
(tui_setup_io): Rename extern declaration readline_echoing_p to
_rl_echoing_p. Adjust assignments for the both renames.
gdb/doc/
* Makefile.in (GDB_DOC_SOURCE_INCLUDES): Rename inc-hist.texinfo to
hsuser.texi.
* gdb.texinfo <!SYSTEM_READLINE>: Rename inc-hist.texinfo inclusion and
comment to hsuser.texi. Change rluser.texi name in the comment.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-11 23:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-05-01 12:29 [patch 0/3] readline-6.2 rebase Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-09 17:00 ` Tom Tromey
2011-05-11 6:04 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-11 16:36 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-05-11 17:15 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-05-11 23:44 ` [commit] " Jan Kratochvil
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox