From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21950 invoked by alias); 17 Sep 2002 17:49:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21940 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2002 17:49:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Sep 2002 17:49:38 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17rNPc-0004B5-00; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:49:28 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17rMTY-00060z-00; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:49:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:49:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Carlton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] convert blocks to dictionaries, phase 1, main part Message-ID: <20020917174928.GA23058@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020917143553.GA28408@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00345.txt.bz2 On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 10:43:42AM -0700, David Carlton wrote: > On Tue, 17 Sep 2002 10:35:53 -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > > > I think that you should take Andrew's suggestion, though - create a > > branch to finish this work on. It's a bit of a hassle, since you'll > > need to do periodic merges to the branch, but I don't feel right > > adding something with this many temporary interfaces and FIXMEs to > > the trunk. Then you can commit patches on the branch without > > approval, and get it into a stabler state. > > Sure, if that's what you want. Is it okay to put up an RFA after I've > switched over just blocks, or do you want me to wait until after I've > switched over global symbols as well? > > Obviously my attempt to make patches smaller by introducing temporary > interfaces wasn't a smashing success. Ah well; I'll know better next > time... Basically, at any point when you don't have a lot of temporary gunk. I confess, I'm of two minds about working on a branch for this sort of thing: I consider it very impractical for things which don't break up into pieces easily afterwards. GCC has been using an interesting approach, which I think we could adapt and extend here. How about a branch which require approval just like the mainline for large patches, although giving David a little more freedom to play around. Then, we'd allow large merges from the branch back to the trunk when they were ready and tested - larger patches than we'd normally accept all at once, because they'd already been approved. Andrew - thoughts? Does it have any interesting possibilities? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer