From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id D2KXD8SC8WY8nzQAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 11:01:24 -0400 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=w9geq9Oi; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 0281A1E353; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 11:01:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE,URIBL_BLOCKED,URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E74271E05C for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 11:01:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608DF3857000 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 15:01:22 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 608DF3857000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1727103682; bh=J2PQk+Mfaz1nULJOYFwuyBDabMYZz7XpCvIlYh2FrXQ=; h=Date:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=w9geq9Oi6tM3hend8OvK2X0F2j/sF02dP5WNZRGYV2rXVPagVFDeBXOYBp8x2Q9aY UZD9h3VGhSWlEF8Pf6u8rbtg6uujW12xIKSSkNsZxdYMpiUDr1oMh8/TDXK7vqfeFp qTizqq7O1Y2Dnn52+JJ2dHv6PP+HDDzqil5rNT5I= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85FE43858C48 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 15:00:33 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 85FE43858C48 ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 85FE43858C48 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1727103635; cv=none; b=RF6Y44V/csZ+eYvbNW2HWgS+8g1nOtEArX17D33yIpO2b7mmxR/MlcJ8EpjduVzPPE6VU5l+YEtwW1C7LfFt+gntxFenYFJayxELYd/6uY/z6eD/a0cdvXlV/e6+6x+0E2w+GVuQG4JFKbl9124udg+MdMRKvKr+Ka/0Ci/bkD8= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1727103635; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Rec9ajatfeei7I4rVdZ2Tqg7se8Q82jcolxV6bB6iVo=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=mUC1W9rDi7yKi4bkGJCWLE+7Xip+KrCbHol/01bIw0B3Fuu4tq5/N5Gm6cw3dLaNEUTAqfByBChQnF4AeeWg+TGwwgxefQ2ouY1Dx87y3cE20jlZ8OErvTt4+9kBwJntiQ3JCVdWQfzbzsMoebhdNw14mWjN+W4pB4Mw5gJ/MFo= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-600-A1Ua1S2LM2-6n4TSdxQlvg-1; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 11:00:30 -0400 X-MC-Unique: A1Ua1S2LM2-6n4TSdxQlvg-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-42cbcf60722so34574835e9.1 for ; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 08:00:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1727103629; x=1727708429; h=mime-version:references:message-id:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=J2PQk+Mfaz1nULJOYFwuyBDabMYZz7XpCvIlYh2FrXQ=; b=kNPtiPWM3un5y/taCIldVYvz+PGIiOEr03JJ4Y7GX9Ys0qBQoFC3sskRcSwk+3AIhi AOVhWiLiFuEkl9TAgXzCidMiw0PfH7Jvn/uzyFCIRyoW5HHsuHB81jSgFXiUz/h/icAb nSQs6GMt1LvhN3uWDNLrgRgYKjyiEM1DKa1fw2XGdgrTRwXrGYZuPoPCJ9RuXkfOPTzN zoT/rRAm/BnjFhyY27WSeR/0heolRs+BIA0eRtVHtTY6IjBd2tjMmQ/xGxFBVkUedo8q QNYQN3EbylPUk/TrbV2hIQtjtkZZid9M5bFfP0l8OZRgmM1d8HU2quDiTRoO6zo4C71d 21Wg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVasm7Dm1OZ2MolJbqURxVGPInzqhRct6lDh/tZWDDfEzmIniYKe8peNWC8g6PpgQnY3pA=@sourceware.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw0oX9Vkt4cRx0zDwSyyCCPGCj37gCy6b+2MbxtshvYT1IleQS4 kkmNvXr2nMvpwPM/6p94YIaoQxgJuKr5E13n5wcgrkjk4mpp0ZskQYaDjSeOZYkLJ6t8X67yW4i KlpZbWxJD7GNemTSMzbytnzDy+x3+Vg5i3cd1VE6zdSq1wAor X-Received: by 2002:adf:e845:0:b0:374:c977:7453 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-37a431608famr5941417f8f.25.1727103628770; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 08:00:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGyjqCUg3hxRheKB8l1uTaRMjcUezXssonPOQX15qrIQ6vJX3Sm5wivpHdztYuUFves9oWwGg== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e845:0:b0:374:c977:7453 with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-37a431608famr5941384f8f.25.1727103628308; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 08:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (digraph.polyomino.org.uk. [2001:8b0:bf73:93f7::51bb:e332]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id ffacd0b85a97d-378e78002a4sm24863143f8f.78.2024.09.23.08.00.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 23 Sep 2024 08:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1sskXE-0000000CkKG-1mZg; Mon, 23 Sep 2024 14:59:32 +0000 Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 14:59:32 +0000 (UTC) To: "Richard Earnshaw (lists)" cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: On pull request workflows for the GNU toolchain In-Reply-To: <4cea35db-1005-4341-bfea-2e5d78b3399d@arm.com> Message-ID: <3e338671-4b55-1c58-b9b3-ae157f0ae9c4@redhat.com> References: <4cea35db-1005-4341-bfea-2e5d78b3399d@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Joseph Myers via Gdb Reply-To: Joseph Myers Errors-To: gdb-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb" On Mon, 23 Sep 2024, Richard Earnshaw (lists) via Gcc wrote: > One thing we must do, however, is break requirements into a number of > categories: must haves (red lines, we can't transition without this); should > haves (important, but we can likely find acceptable work-arounds); and would > like (this would make things really nice, but they won't really block a > transition). The assessment of a forge against the criteria isn't expected to be simple yes/no; it's expected to involve more of an analysis/discussion of how criteria / underlying goals relate to the facilities provided by a particular forge. And there isn't a very sharp line between "work-around" and "doing this in some external software hooked up to the forge with an API is the expected way of doing such things with the forge". (Plenty of projects make extensive use of APIs to implement their own workflows on GitHub, for example. That sort of thing works much better for e.g. CI or actions that are supposed to happen post-commit, than for something like support for dependencies / patch series which is more of a core feature needing to be present in the underlying software.) -- Joseph S. Myers josmyers@redhat.com