Bart Schaefer wrote:
> 
> On Oct 8,  9:07am, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> }
> } Is anyone keeping track of 4.0 patches or should I go through the log
> } myself?  (`Anyone' means Bart, obviously.)
> 
> Unfortunately, no, this time I've only been keeping track of the patches
> that I put on the branch myself.  Nobody seems to have agreed with (or
> at least, not stuck with) my suggestion that ChangeLog entries on the
> branch be kept in sync with the original appearance of the patch on the
> trunk, which would have made diffing the changes simpler.  I was planning
> to just diff the entire trees to attempt to determine what else might
> need to be copied, but I've been pretty busy.  (I shouldn't even be out
> of bed now ...)

To be honest I must have missed the suggestion of keeping the ChangeLog
entries the same in both branches when you first mentioned it. Do you
include the lines with the dates and full ordering in that? I've done a
few messy things like the last completion change where I excluded the
_wget changes from the stable branch but included the rest.

Anyway to make this task easier, I passed both ChangeLogs through a bit
of sed to extract just the entries, wrapped onto one line each. These
could then be passed through sort followed by diff. I've attached the
result which I think is clearer than a diff of the entire trees.

Without having searched in detail, I've identified these as possibly
wanting to go in 4.0:

15180, 15181, 15676 (at least the root check part), 15742, 15806

Oliver