On 5/16/20 5:45 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > Overall perhaps a patch management system might be good having to make > chasing patches easier, such as patchwork, and we already use Git, so we
As an old GNU project, we're required to use what the FSF prefers, which is on savannah. https://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?group=dejagnu, Our bug tracker is there their too. We've used that for a long time. Yes, patches in email are harder to track. > fresh patchwork? The patch traffic is surely much lower with DejaGnu than > it is with glibc, and there would be no data to migrate (but we might want > to feed a couple of months' back worth of mailing list traffic). I'm now building up the infrastructure to properly test patches, but it's not enough to do the next release. All I have these days is my laptop and a PI B3+. I'd need access to more hardware as some of the patches effect cross testing, or get others to test the release candidates. Much of the problems with cross testing are often obscure timing problems. It's amazing how sometimes a minor unrelated change changes the timing and things break... To do a release properly requires duplicating that level of infrastructure for at least several targets and several toolchain release, and built on more than one GNU/Linux distro. It'll take most of the week to really get a good base setup with baseline test results, but some of the patches like the DejaGnu testsuite ones will go in first since they don't effect the toolchain. Jacob already added 9 patches to our site. I'm still building cross compilers since some of his patches effect cross testing. I did add ADA to my builds, which isn't a normal build default, since I thought some of the patches for ADA. - rob - --- https://www.senecass.com
