From: Joseph Myers via Gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>
To: enh <enh@google.com>
Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>,
Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de>,
gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libc-alpha@sourceware.org,
binutils@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org,
"fortran@gcc.gnu.org" <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: On pull request workflows for the GNU toolchain
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2024 15:03:24 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <68f584af-174c-05ba-7cac-d86c05c8f143@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJgzZooTOp8F5HKK3GiSiVjNfH9wsoQxs8767ELfnNwv0Wi4BA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024, enh via Gcc wrote:
> it doesn't make the patch _management_ problem better ("now i have two
> problems"), but https://github.com/landley/toybox takes the "why not both?"
> approach --- you can use pull requests if you grew up with/adapted to
> git/github, or you can use the mailing list otherwise ... taking into
> account that what the "barriers" are depend on whose eye's you're looking
> through.
My expectation is that such a split would need to work for an initial
transitional period at least (for reviews of patches posted before the
move to the forge software without requiring all such under-review patches
to go into PRs if people want review, if nothing else). While I think
there are advantages in terms of structured data if everything ends up
using PRs (including people doing PRs that are immediately self-merged of
changes in areas they maintain), it would be possible to do otherwise (at
least until you get to wanting all merges to mainline to be done by a CI
system that maintains a regression-free state for at least one
configuration).
--
Joseph S. Myers
josmyers@redhat.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-23 15:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-19 15:51 Joseph Myers via Gdb
2024-09-20 18:25 ` Carlos O'Donell via Gdb
2024-09-20 20:41 ` Joseph Myers via Gdb
2024-09-20 21:43 ` Sam James via Gdb
2024-09-20 19:58 ` Matt Rice via Gdb
2024-09-20 20:47 ` Joseph Myers via Gdb
2024-09-23 12:07 ` Thomas Koenig via Gdb
2024-09-23 12:53 ` Jeffrey Walton via Gdb
2024-09-23 13:23 ` Jonathan Wakely via Gdb
2024-09-23 13:36 ` enh via Gdb
2024-09-23 14:33 ` Jonathan Wakely via Gdb
2024-09-23 15:56 ` Iain Sandoe
2024-09-23 15:03 ` Joseph Myers via Gdb [this message]
2024-09-23 15:20 ` Florian Weimer via Gdb
2024-09-23 15:44 ` Jonathan Wakely via Gdb
2024-09-23 17:57 ` Eric Gallager via Gdb
2024-09-23 18:39 ` Jonathan Wakely via Gdb
2024-09-23 18:30 ` Arsen Arsenović via Gdb
2024-09-23 12:56 ` Richard Earnshaw (lists) via Gdb
2024-09-23 14:59 ` Joseph Myers via Gdb
2024-09-24 3:43 ` Jiang, Haochen via Gdb
2024-09-24 16:42 ` Joseph Myers via Gdb
2024-09-25 3:01 ` Jiang, Haochen via Gdb
2024-09-25 14:46 ` Joseph Myers via Gdb
2024-09-26 1:42 ` Jiang, Haochen via Gdb
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=68f584af-174c-05ba-7cac-d86c05c8f143@redhat.com \
--to=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=enh@google.com \
--cc=fortran@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=josmyers@redhat.com \
--cc=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=libc-alpha@sourceware.org \
--cc=tkoenig@netcologne.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox