This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: source mgt. requirements solicitation
> There are currently three of four serious revision control projects in
> the free software world (OpenCM, svn, arch, and metacvs),
You forgot to list RCS and CVS.
> 2) GCC, more than many projects, relies on a distributed
> testing effort, which mostly applies to the HEAD revision
> and to release candidates. Most of this testing is done
> by hand.
All my testing is automated.
> 3) Judging by the messages on this list, there is some tension
> between the release cycle and feature development -- some
> issues around what is merged when, and around the impact of
> freezes.
I don't see how any revision management system can fix this. This is
a people problem.
> 9) Distributed testing occurs mostly on the HEAD -- which
> means that the HEAD breaks on various targets, fairly
> frequently.
No, more testing on head means that head *works* more often. The
other branches are just as broken, we just don't know about it yet.
> 10) The utility of the existing revision control set up to
> people who lack write access is distinctly less than
> the utility to people with write access.
This is a good thing. We don't want them to be able to do all the
things write-access people can do. That's the whole point.
> 11) Some efforts, such as overhauling the build process, will
> probably benefit from a switch to rev ctl. systems that
> support tree rearrangements.
Like CVS? It supports trees.