Re: A librep patch, binary incompatible.

[Christopher Roy Bratusek <zanghar freenet de>]

Am Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:40:29 +0900 (JST)
schrieb Teika Kazura <teika lavabit com>:

> Hi. I've written a librep patch. (Attached, but don't commit it yet,
> since the doc doesn't accompany. A commit looks self explanatory
> if it comes with a doc. Actually, it's a combination of three commits.)
> 
> The main goal is the improvement in 'documentation' function which
> returns the docstring of a variable or function. The current one does
> not always work well with a subr or macro, and broken for pager
> functions (more precisely, files byte-compiled by users.)
> The fix benefits "sawfish.el", an emacs major mode, whose update will
> be released soon by me. (Also, subr commands' doc is not shown in the
> configurator without the patch.)
> 
> It looks like a minor patch, but it's binary incompatible; you have to
> compile rep-gtk and sawfish again, in this order. So I think enough
> testing period is necessary. Do you think it's good to merge it now?
> 
> If merged now, I think it's better to put off the Sawfish release a
> bit; test Librep for a month, and release two weeks before Sawfish.
> That's the schedule I imagine. (It's correct it's not the period,
> but the quality of the test, but I don't know how to test. ;| It seems
> to be running ok, though, on my PC.)
> 
> At the same time, it'll be good to "bump big" both Librep and Sawfish;
> binary incompatible Librep shouldn't be 0.90.7, but 0.91.0, but it's a
> good occasion, since the next Sawfish will be 1.7.0, not 1.6.x.
> 
> Thank anyway for reading,
> Teika (Teika kazura)

Looks good from first sight (except the first hunk for lisp.h has a typo struct{ru,ur}e).

I would commit it now, as it extends the testing-period. Your above description should be
enough for now, better docs can be added when you have time.

I thought you would have it on your branch, so I'm going to commit it from the patch,
after I've tested it. :/

Regards,
Chris