From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19458 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2002 15:22:03 -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 19419 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2002 15:22:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 2002 15:22:00 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563793F30; Fri, 29 Nov 2002 10:21:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DE78612.6070603@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2002 07:22:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Clifton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, neroden@twcny.rr.com Subject: Re: (toplevel patch) Remove 'vault' targets References: <20021128024607.GA14747@doctormoo> <3DE59B7C.10205@redhat.com> <200211280501.gAS519S00664@envy.delorie.com> <3DE65CE4.5020908@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00737.txt.bz2 > Hi Andrew, > > >> >> I think its better for Nath. to be committing this stuff >> >> incrementally (at least to the src repository). That way it gets >> >> exposed to the mainstream sooner. > >> > We could start committing to src if we don't mind src and gcc being >> > out of sync until gcc's freeze is over. > >> >> M'kay by me. Nick? Preference? > > > I would prefer to keep the two projects in sync if possible. I assume > that there is no great urgency to remove the vault targets, so why not > wait until the gcc freeze is over and the patch can be applied to both > projects at the same time ? If it were a single patch, it would be no big deal. Unfortunatly, it is an accumulating sequence of changes that will hit GDB/BINUTILS at some random point in the future (most (all?) patches that Nath. recently posted are being parked on a branch :-(). In the case of GDB, mega-jumbo breaking branch merges are not our style. Nath. would effectively have to slow-mo re-play these changes into the src repository :-( Andrew