From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id haESMHVjImeSvB8AWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 12:48:53 -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=J9N6Bs3Z; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9EE4E1E5A1; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 12:48:53 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE,URIBL_BLOCKED,URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS autolearn=unavailable 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 D34FC1E35A for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 12:48:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9CF3857B96 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 16:48:52 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 6A9CF3857B96 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1730306932; bh=flG1ekCb9/fj9G5BI443atdR6hVnoHoUi5asCdpiLyI=; 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=J9N6Bs3ZxCCfCWnefl//hjFAv+LTtJtS5pcb5OAhVf69APSMvvD2GfNCCTb4RJ72K s0/ldpJm/IdNduYCJ4Up8gAXIOS9nvhDYyECnUoUgcQ3DdHXR7HSWYnR9LkUYBj/0/ djselFuLfrllFNjbFcEVEGxSlw3BoeWYkhk3gyzc= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7F5385841F for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 16:46:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org AE7F5385841F ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org AE7F5385841F ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1730306777; cv=none; b=mVKlZufWC3oYyl5h6BfPj4kQQJH2u7rq50vLapk6dwFGD8kZUw9tGY3b1fou8Tyv8TWgsa6pFeQfwBr9aH/5BRkehHl1S+hXddHMtajbyyxDYIs5ZylSIzlarBfaFoUZaVt+0cGKKKFNnl+IYpWrSCHT+Vtk0c04/OF4BqLRcmM= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1730306777; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dkRcX73/JoaYgdUVyWYRsAu1i5fDQ5TzodAoP+bABTQ=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=Jg9mg7f2taUhICaLNJBTqNIzrTGLDM1W9T5f1v9Lmcrf95z7ZGZh0GiaILuYhW9Wd5j2DlNX1y9DfvrBg0cUum0+UjLja1d1VEaY5UYP7TBtWKnnxJ/IU3ubU9BqoyhyJdDuxJlK65Mjz2SLlkRO/QY+TGXoN3BrJvcx5dPdWuY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org Received: from mail-wm1-f72.google.com (mail-wm1-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-179-2oPR4jfxNHe2M7hhHYry0g-1; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 12:46:09 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 2oPR4jfxNHe2M7hhHYry0g-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f72.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-43159c07193so347565e9.0 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 09:46:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1730306768; x=1730911568; 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=flG1ekCb9/fj9G5BI443atdR6hVnoHoUi5asCdpiLyI=; b=taaJg5ZEYD53xFYrtw/IXbSIuKk+00Dg52Jsujc2m1diUW3pwiF4QZukSSNuoknGKm OskcDA2Fr03/pMfaDVWkKPFn7dOsiPLQTVLG6jrPyqjODSaJ2XOAXr7DXmgpY0cUaYZ6 5kX3kr2YzQqrnVsPWwlWkWkenXaIF6nYwZYIQtA+bnqLtGvEVVV1K2hBT6IhtJ0/vJhj MMRpzvN+K6kLJVPZynFJwMoImDlHbbEZpCSwvw1+R1kcvFFl5UKzCJJQAZSjsixQ0eG0 sJIe4fqCe67btix+G22NfeWD/Yw6Icuz/BL/YyBWRIagLRXmKr1f8i1eqPUiZ6HIp1tH 8oqA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWBbjm/XUepcY+CzA2KgAuSk+KB2MQ6N0MNce1CRuZK8uHNvoCWTSHAsNQ/lvwF0iL6oJY=@sourceware.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyHDRCmhNWuvCrOHWRcEgZFT3039lJFvC8Q51jEv1Nd6CtYdZU5 GsB5I8akJdzSCMaB1oOCnenD7X028Ox1Au9xTPJG2FHhoyMDkF339524aQ3kDxgDPCxETEGfuFr KSLkCfTW/JyF/vvkhtUwlkk2G+k7LaB3S1pqwLhOZ2vwkOisMhLXOrXH6 X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:5249:b0:426:6e9a:7a1e with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4319ad293bfmr148897495e9.35.1730306767890; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 09:46:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHZcWiwe7g5+ROmV8J24q8XjdchKU509SN3EQeHPju8VsW0o2MId/j0e7FsE6Nf0u4rahXJ8g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:5249:b0:426:6e9a:7a1e with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-4319ad293bfmr148897225e9.35.1730306767515; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 09:46:07 -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-38058b9d70fsm15794723f8f.108.2024.10.30.09.46.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 30 Oct 2024 09:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1t6Bp8-00000009Q3Z-2sf9; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 16:45:34 +0000 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 16:45:34 +0000 (UTC) To: Mark Wielaard cc: Carlos O'Donell , gcc developers , glibc developers , gdb developers , binutils developers , Overseers mailing list , cti-tac@lists.linuxfoundation.org, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Zo=EB_Kooyman?= , "Karen M. Sandler" Subject: Re: Core Toolchain Infrastructure - October 2024 update In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <9ee5b9e1-3f84-4d9e-8249-7a4bf8080bb0@redhat.com> <20241030103912.GD28606@gnu.wildebeest.org> <3a2c2d35-3b86-4286-a393-5ec166659f92@redhat.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 Wed, 30 Oct 2024, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Yes, we did already discuss this. But it is too early for that. Richard > setup a wiki page for the Forge Experiment that includes a list of > various bugs/issues in Forgejo that we would like to see resolved > before we can call the experiment an success. > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ForgeExperiment > When we are a bit further into the experiment to know which ones are > real blockers, we could fund the work to get those done. There is also my long list of considerations at https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2024-September/244806.html for evaluation - it's not just a few specific issues, there are lots of things to evaluate. Some may be supported well already, some may need more work on the ForgeJo side, some may involve significant local scripting to combine with existing or new APIs on the ForgeJo side. I don't think there's any real evaluation been done yet of what email notifications can be set up to go to mailing lists and what those notifications look like (for pull requests, commits, etc.) and how much is configurable there or needs custom scripting, or of what configuration is available for checks on commits that are allowed to enter either the repository at all or specific branches thereof (both commits pushed directly and commits merged via PRs) - but such checks are certainly important to avoid various subsequent automation (e.g. the nightly cron jobs) falling over. (I expect many of these things to involve some kind of configuration hooks that link into appropriate APIs / scripting we'd need to provide, rather than ForgeJo having configuration options that directly match what we want.) Likewise, for API support sufficient for people to build their own efficient workflows for reviewing lots of patches, where they currently have such workflows based on email. As discussed in the previous thread, such evaluation would probably take a narrative form discussing how desired features relate to what ForgeJo provides, not checkbox yes/no for each item, and so provide a basis for further consideration of what we achieve through appropriate hooks / scripting, what we seek to get added as ForgeJo features (possibly paying for features to be implemented) and what we might end up deciding is less important or has underlying goals that can be achieved in a different way. Each toolchain project may reach its own conclusions about what's important for possibly moving to a forge - we don't have any group that makes decisions for the toolchain as a whole, and each project has its own existing hooks and other scripting / automation that would need adapting. -- Joseph S. Myers josmyers@redhat.com