Re: [RFA] convert blocks to dictionaries, phase 1, main part

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 02:44:56PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> GCC's approach relies on GCC's development cycle: break, fix, release. 
> You can only pull stuff in from those branches during the ``break'' 
> phase.  And during that phase, things, from what I've seen, really are 
> broken (I got stuck trying to commit a patch because I couldn't 
> build/test GCC for several weeks).
> 
> I also, to be honest, think that GCC has bigger problems than GDB.  With 
> GDB, the basic architecture is fine (if you look at the relationships 
> and ignore all the globals and messed up interfaces :-).  GCC, on the 
> other hand, needs some of its fundamental data structures and algorithms 
> completly replaced.

I think this is just as true of GDB.

> >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?
> 
> Let me put it this way, I'm scared shitless of another HP jumbo patch.

That's not the point.  That's why I suggested a branch which does
require approval, precisely so that we wouldn't get into that problem.
But you don't seem to like that idea, so it's dead.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer