Nick, We occasionally "break master" by updating newlib or gcc. This is fine, but yes it deserves a shout-out.
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Nick Withers <nick.with...@anu.edu.au> wrote: > Hullo again, > > On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 20:04 +1100, Nick Withers wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Attached is a patch for master similar to that I posted to the Newlib >> mailing list in https://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2015/msg00888.html * >> . >> >> It chases Newlib changes to sys/types.h / sys/select.h and allows us >> to use Newlib's sys/select.h directly rather than rolling our own. > > This patch would break building master with pre-08184b3 Newlib. > > Is this a problem? Should it be? > > > How would folk feel about declaring that the master branch, like > FreeBSD -CURRENT [1], is "unstable" and subject to changes like this > that require the end-user to be on their game? > > Could we then just have an UPDATING-equivalent and/or mailing list post > for changes like this that says "hey, you need to recompile your > tools"? > > ...Or should we invest the time and effort to ensure that maintain > backwards-compatibility whereever possible across all branches? > > > I suppose there'd probably need to be releases more regularly to avoid > people being somewhat-forced onto master. Other thoughts? > > > [1] https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/current-stable.html > -- > Nick "definitely not trying desperately to avoid having to touch autotools" > Withers > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@rtems.org > http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
