This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Proposed gfortran development branch
- From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at verizon dot net>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:34:51 +0100
- Subject: Re: Proposed gfortran development branch
- References: <1237423478.8965.8.camel@eeepc> <84fc9c000903190306p2eeefd2cu6b374e2398960840@mail.gmail.com>
> Note that merging the branch will be painful (as in, please dissect
> the branch into the individual patches again to make bisecting the
> trunk SVN possible). Also the SC vetoed these kind of 'integration'
> branches in the past (to not encourage starting an effective stage1
> on a branch).
I think that gfortran is managed in a sufficiently different way than
the rest of GCC (e.g. they started having reviewers long before the rest
of GCC did, and they appoint their own maintainers practically
autonomously) that I don't think there is a reason to care.
What you see in practice is Novell and Google doing stage1 work, and the
volunteer gfortraners stuck.
Besides, the rule against integration branches, while being extremely
well founded, is bound to become obsolete. GCC developers could start
using distributed version control and publishing their work on git.or.cz
or github -- and after they pull from each other, all of the
distributed repositories will be integration branches. Should the SC
prohibit developing GCC with Mercurial or git?
Paolo