This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Making your branches smaller for easier merges


Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 09/27/06 18:50:
> On 27/09/06, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 09/27/06 18:25:
>>> On 27/09/06, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If a pristine directory needs changes from the directory I branched, I'm
>>>> in trouble.
>>>>
>>> Why? Sorry, I think I don't understand what you mean.
>>>
>> Say I branch gcc/gcc and keep all the runtime libraries pristine.  Now
>> suppose that a new change in mainline introduces changes in gcc/libgomp
>> which require a new compiler option.
>>
>> Since I branched gcc/gcc I'm out of sync with mainline and now libgomp
>> doesn't build, forcing me to merge my branched directory.
> 
> Hum, no? You can either don't update libgomp (or update back to a
> previous revision).
> 
No, you cannot count on that.  The machines I have doing automated
check-outs and builds of my branch will get corrupted trees.  Somebody
else getting a copy of the branch will also get a broken tree.

> Anyway, feel free to end this conversation as soon as you wish since
> Paul Brook is right: given fast internet and plenty harddrive, all
> this is pointless.
> 
Precisely.  It's much simpler to branch the whole thing.  SVN ought to
be smart enough to do COW versioning (I understand it does).


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]