Re: 3.5 integration branch created

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>]

On Jan 13, 2004, at 17:14, Geoffrey Keating wrote:

> I have created the gcc-3.5-integration-branch.  It is similar in some 
> ways to the 'basic-improvement' branch in the GCC 3.4 timeframe, but 
> has some significant differences.  The rules for the branch are:
>
> 1. This branch is for fully-tested, approved patches.  The rules for 
> committing to it are the same as the rules that apply during Stage 1 
> of GCC development.  Experimental or incomplete work should not be put 
> on the branch.

Well then you should not be accepting patches that usually go in for 
Stage1 then.

> 2. The intention is that immediately after GCC 3.4 branches, this 
> branch will be merged back to mainline.

What happens if no one uses this as it having branches is a pain in the 
neck.
Also fixing bugs in any code even if the bug is in the new one is 
needed every where.


> 3. I will be making regular (probably weekly) merges from mainline 
> onto this branch.  I will be testing these merges with a 
> powerpc-darwin native bootstrap.  Anyone who commits anything to the 
> branch that can't be fully tested with a powerpc-darwin native 
> bootstrap should watch for the mail I send out saying the merge is 
> done, and then run a test on their own platform and send the results 
> to gcc-testresults.

Well if that is the case no one is going to use the branch as they 
should be more focused
towards 3.4.  Also are you going to merges where the source has changed 
so much that you cannot do a merge within one week?

> 4. Anyone who commits to the branch is still responsible for 
> maintaining the patch on the branch: fixing regressions that it 
> causes, and sometimes updating or reintegrating it after merges.  I 
> expect that for most patches, this will be much less work than 
> maintaining the patch on their own.

Well this just makes this branch to hard to use and no one is going to 
use it.

> 5. I may back a patch out of the branch if it (a) causes bootstrap 
> failure or significant regressions on any platform and the author 
> doesn't appear to be able to fix it quickly, or (b) don't appear to 
> have followed Rule 1 or Rule 3.

What about compile time regressions also, are you going to test speed 
of the compiler too?


> I'll update the web pages tomorrow...


Thanks,
Andrew Pinski