From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 936 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2003 18:32:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 885 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2003 18:32:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2003 18:32:44 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id SAA23450; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:32:38 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma023219; Thu, 20 Feb 03 18:32:13 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA04183; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:32:12 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h1KIWCq05909; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:32:12 GMT Message-Id: <200302201832.h1KIWCq05909@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha owned process doing -bs To: Andrew Cagney cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Jim Blandy , gdb@sources.redhat.com, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:54:50 EST." <3E539ABA.4050203@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:32:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00426.txt.bz2 > One thing GCC(4) and GDB are now is encouraging exprementation on > branches development to always occure on branches cut from the the > relevant repository. For GDB we've had both success stories but also > disasters. With that in mind, and looking at the GCC / GDB success > stories, I'd suggest the following guidelines: > > - branches shall post all commits > They don't need approval but can be commented on. > > - branches shall to be focused > The interps branch started out too large with too many changes - look at > the size of the final commit compared to that branch at its peak. Much > time was lost because the branch started with too much lint :-( > > - branches shall track mainline. > This keeps the level of divergence under control. It also keeps the > pressure on developers to push cleanups and other stuff into the mainline. I think there's a few other ground-rules that ought to apply, particularly with respect to the first point: -Branches should have an owner. The owner can set further policy for a branch, but may not change the ground rules. In particular, they can set a policy for commits (be it adding more reviewers or deciding who can commit). -All commits to a branch must be covered by an assignment This saves us from the situation where a branch might become contaminated. R.