On 9 November 2010 15:36, Andrew Stubbs <ams@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' approval.


   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
   from.

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.

Ira
 

Andrew