From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29929 invoked by alias); 17 Sep 2002 19:30:20 -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 29920 invoked from network); 17 Sep 2002 19:30:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Sep 2002 19:30:19 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17rOz1-0004Kq-00; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 15:30:07 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17rO2x-0007Gz-00; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 15:30:07 -0400 Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 12:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] convert blocks to dictionaries, phase 1, main part Message-ID: <20020917193007.GA27789@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020917143553.GA28408@nevyn.them.org> <20020917174928.GA23058@nevyn.them.org> <3D877828.2050607@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D877828.2050607@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00352.txt.bz2 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