Proposal for the transition timetable for the move to GIT

Richard Biener
Sun Dec 29 11:02:00 GMT 2019

On December 29, 2019 11:41:00 AM GMT+01:00, Segher Boessenkool <> wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 02:40:45AM +0100, Julien FrnchFrgg Rivaud
>> >Oh, I'm not talking about historical merges.  I'm saying we
>shouldn't do
>> >future merges, where we can help that.  It disagrees with our
>> >"submitting patches" protocol.
>> I don't see how that can be correct. Linux is heavily "submitting 
>> patches" based, with stringent reviews on LKML, yet heavily uses
>Linux has most development done in separate trees, one for each
>That is not how GCC works.
>I was talking about , see heading
>"submitting patches" :-)
>> >Nothing should ever be flattened to a single commit.  But before
>> >hit trunk, the patch series can be made nicer than it was at the
>> >of its development.
>> I quite agree with that, and it resonates with my TL;DR chunk of text
>Yup.  Rebasing is superior to merging in many ways.  Merging is
>if there is parallel development of (mostly) independent things. 
>aren't that, usually: they can be rebased easily, and they should be
>for review anyway.
>It is very easy to use merges more often than is useful, and it hurts.

For bisecting trunk a merge would be a single commit, right? So I could see value in preserving a patch series where individual steps might introduce temporary issues as a branch merge (after rebasing) so the series is visible but not when bisecting (by default). It would also make the series relatedness obvious and avoids splitting it with a commit race (if that is possible with git). 

IMHO exact workflow for merging a patch series as opposed to a single patch should be documented. 



More information about the Gcc mailing list