GCC SVN vs. BZR/LP
ira.rosen at linaro.org
Tue Nov 9 14:11:25 UTC 2010
On 9 November 2010 15:36, Andrew Stubbs <ams at codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On 09/11/10 12:55, Ira Rosen wrote:
>> * We can't really apply anything we want just for ourselves
>> Why? It will be our "private" Linaro branch. We can apply whatever we
>> want there (we can also decide on reviewers and/or some submit/commit
>> procedure). We can mark our patches with both [<our branch name>] and
>> [4.7] when we send them to gcc-patches.
> Applying patches that are not intended to go upstream would defeat the
> object of easing the merge. We'd need to revert all those bits before
> merging. It'd be clearer and easier to commit the individual patches we do
> want upstream one at a time when the time comes.
I don't believe we will be able to get all the patches pre-approved and
maintain a pure linaro-trunk anyway. For me the main value of SVN branch is
an ability to make my work visible to GCC community and give them an
opportunity to review the patches (or express their opinions) without asking
them to do that explicitly during early stage 3.
I understand that it's my developer's point of view and it doesn't make
branch/release management easier (as Richard mentioned in his mail). But
since our goal is to commit everything upstream (right?), I think we should
try to make the review of our patches it as easy as possible. And having an
SVN branch is a good way to do so. Branch merge is in our hands, and even if
it's a lot of work, we don't depend on other people as with patches'
> I think the big question here is, when will we start wanting to make
>> (unstable/experimental) Linaro GCC 4.6 releases? If we want to do it
>> early, then we'll have no choice but to have an LP branch to release
>> Again, I don't understand why our SVN branch needs to be stable ;)
> I don't think I said it had to be? My point is that numbered Linaro GCC
> releases really ought to be tagged in a LP branch somewhere. This is simply
> good practice, and not about stability. My 'unstable' comment was merely
> pointing out that pre-4.6.0 snapshots should not be marketed as trusted,
> high-quality releases.
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the linaro-toolchain