On 09/11/10 12:55, Ira Rosen wrote:
* We can't really apply anything we want just for ourselvesWhy? It will be our "private" Linaro branch. We can apply whatever we want there (we can also decide on reviewers and/or some submit/commit procedure). We can mark our patches with both [<our branch name>] and [4.7] when we send them to gcc-patches.
Applying patches that are not intended to go upstream would defeat the object of easing the merge. We'd need to revert all those bits before merging. It'd be clearer and easier to commit the individual patches we do want upstream one at a time when the time comes.
* Write permissions not clear.Do you mean we have people without GCC write-after-approval permissions?
Well, yes, but I'm assuming there aren't many of those. The question that was raised what about who is permitted to add junk into the GCC repo. I believe that it's not a problem, but I'm not certain. There's also the question of what the assignment status of patches on branches needs to be?
I think the big question here is, when will we start wanting to make (unstable/experimental) Linaro GCC 4.6 releases? If we want to do it early, then we'll have no choice but to have an LP branch to release from.Again, I don't understand why our SVN branch needs to be stable ;)
I don't think I said it had to be? My point is that numbered Linaro GCC releases really ought to be tagged in a LP branch somewhere. This is simply good practice, and not about stability. My 'unstable' comment was merely pointing out that pre-4.6.0 snapshots should not be marketed as trusted, high-quality releases.
Andrew