This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: RFC: future gfortran development and subversion


On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 08:59:36PM +0200, Tobias Schl?ter wrote:
> > 
> > 694M    svn40   <-- svn 4.0 branch 694M    svn41   <-- svn 4.1 branch 694M
> > trunk   <-- svn mainline
> > 
> > Now add one or two additional svn directories for large change sets and
> > this becomes intolerable.  (Before anyone spews "disk space is cheap", I'll
> > gladly accept any scsi U320 disks you wish to send to me).
> 
> If you have multiple directories containing the same branch it should
> be possible to set up a very small svk repository which essentially doesn't
> more than keep a common pristine copy for all the two or three checkouts you
> want to keep (i.e. no or only very little history).  A little information on
> using svk has made it into the wiki, but it's not yet very informative.

OK, I'll go read about svk.  I scanned the svn docs for an
--exclude-dir= option or .svnrc file where excluding directories
could be done.  So far, I've come up empty.  I don't build nor
work in the ada, java, and C++ directories.  It would be great
if we could tell svn to ignore certain directories to recover
wasted space.

> > Now, to my proposal for future gfortran development post 4.1 branching.
> > When (if) svn becomes the source code revision tool, I propose that all
> > future work be done solely on mainline.  No individual patches can be
> > merged into 4.1.  The 4.0 branch will be dead.  Periodically, say bi-weekly
> > or monthly, we do a merge from mainline into 4.1.  The aim is to keep 4.1
> > and mainline sufficiently in sync and to minimize the requirements of
> > additional hardware (except for the day or two required for the merge) and
> > to maximize our time investment.
> 
> This should actually be feasible with svn merge, before on cvs this would have
> been a tedious task.  I fear that this approach will fail to insufficient
> volunteer time, though.

You might be right.  I have a large back log of patches in my inbox
that I need to review for mainline.  It's getting to the point that
I simply lack the time and resources to track multiple branches, so
in the future I may only be able to provide review and approval 
of gfortran patches for mainline.

-- 
Steve


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