On 9 November 2010 14:38, Andrew Stubbs
<ams@codesourcery.com> wrote:
Re my recent email "Upstream GCC feature freeze", I think we're agreed that we need to create a branch that tracks GCC 4.6 development, but has our own performance improvements included. The question is where to host it?
Option 1: Launchpad/bzr
Pros:
* We need no permission to do it
* The branch will naturally evolve into our 4.6 release series in time.
* The 3-way merge works well (if slowly)
* We can include patches that we have no intention of posting upstream ever
* Our patch tracker will Just Work.
* Merge requests will be available.
Cons:
* Bzr ;)
* It's hidden away from the view of most GCC developers
Option 2: GCC SVN branch
Pros:
* We can work in the open, submitting patches via gcc-patches, as usual
* The final merge to GCC trunk (come stage 1) will be eased, a little
Cons:
* 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.
* we may end up maintaining an LP branch shadowing the svn branch
* When we do want to do 4.6 in LP, we'll have to backport all our patches from 4.7, and this may no longer be straightforward.
* Write permissions not clear.
Do you mean we have people without GCC write-after-approval permissions?
* Although I think you can just go ahead and do it?
OK, so I'm sure I've missed some big ones. Please discuss! ;)
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 ;)
Ira
Andrew
_______________________________________________
linaro-toolchain mailing list
linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain