Home Original page

2.12.x branch future?

Daniel Jacobowitz drow@mvista.com
Sat Mar 16 20:43:00 GMT 2002 
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 11:26:05PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >In a project like GCC, where two months are necessary to restabilize,
> >the merit is obvious.  In a project like the binutils, where we are
> >almost always stable except for a week or two after a large patch, it's
> >not so clear.
> 
> I think binutils is closer to GCC then GDB.  If gdb dumps core, then 
> oops, back to kprintf().  If AS/LD dump core or scrambles an executable 
> then the user is stuck.  Fetching LD from the head of the trunk is a 
> risky way of getting a fix for a single problem.

I wasn't talking about necessity, but about stability.  GCC goes
through long periods of simply not working on the trunk; weeks at a
time for some targets.  Binutils does that much more rarely.

> >Also, just as a technical matter, I would prefer that ChangeLog entries
> >be dated with the commit-to-branch date and in that order, rather than
> >trying to match the trunk ChangeLog.  Rationale: It serves as a better
> >log of changes that way, even if sorting out differences between trunk
> >and branch becomes a little harder.
> 
> Can I suggest giving people at least a bit of slack (gdb is a couple 
> days).  Until we all switch to UTC ChangeLogs, things will never be in 
> order.

I don't mean they need to be any more sorted by date than they normally
are; I mean that people should continue to add them at the top when
they do the merge to the branch, rather than in the corresponding place
where they are on the mainline.  I'd like them in the order the patches
appeared on the branch.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer
More information about the Binutils mailing list