This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.5 integration branch created
> > 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.
Stage 1 is not for experimental or incomplete either.
> What happens if no one uses this as it having branches is a pain in the
obviously nothing will need to be merged then will it?
> 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?
I'd be surprised if this happens.
> > 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.
This is a standard mainline rule.
> > 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?
Why bother? no one else does in any of the other regression testers.
Eric Christopher <email@example.com>