Re: merging from gcc

[Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1738 bytes --]

On Mon, 2013-11-11 16:54:20 +0000, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Nov 2013, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-11-08 11:11:09 -0700, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > I've finally set up some semi-automatic merging from gcc to
> > > binutils-gdb.git.
> > 
> > What about merging other external stuff? For the binutils/gdb repo, I
> > have this in mind:
> 
> Any such merges of shared files maintained elsewhere, please update all of 
> GCC SVN, binutils-gdb git and src CVS at the same time, rather than just a 
> subset.  (As the files you mention should always come verbatim from 
> upstream, you don't need to worry about cases where people have changed 
> the different repositories in different ways and you have to do a 
> multi-way merge - you should just be able to copy in the latest version to 
> all three repositories.)

I thought src CVS is dead (aka read-only)?  My script also watched the
other mentioned files, but I've never acted upon them until now. Would
be nice to have a general policy, which seems to just import them to
all repos (`gcc' and 'binutils-gdb') at the same time. For `src', I
think that commits won't work any longer, though I haven't checked.
Indeed, since some days, I only get GIT-style commit messages for
binutils-git, but nothing that supports the fact of a writeable `src'
repo any longer...

MfG, JBG

-- 
      Jan-Benedict Glaw      jbglaw@lug-owl.de              +49-172-7608481
Signature of:         "really soon now":      an unspecified period of time, likly to
the second  :                                 be greater than any reasonable definition
                                              of "soon".

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]