This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Making your branches smaller for easier merges
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote on 09/27/06 18:50:
> On 27/09/06, Diego Novillo <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Manuel LÃ³pez-IbÃ¡Ã±ez wrote on 09/27/06 18:25:
>>> On 27/09/06, Diego Novillo <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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).