On 8 November 2010 20:30, Chung-Lin Tang <clt...@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> Still, I would like to see a 'linaro-trunk' branch under svn:// > gcc.gnu.org/svn/branches. It would actually serve a different purpose than > a LP branch; the LP GCC 4.6 would probably eventually turn into Linaro 4.6, > while a SVN branch would be a preparation for re-merging into mainline trunk > when 4.7-stage1 opens. Also, for the GCC community, a SVN branch would > probably be more convenient. > > We can have our patches submitted to gcc-patches, and have it reviewed > under the usual [patch, <branch>] format, rather than the odd condition > where we ask for approval, then accumulate in an outside repository. On 8 November 2010 20:17, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@linaro.org>wrote: > I agree. One option that Andrew suggested at the meeting was to put the > branch in GCC SVN instead of Launchpad. That sounded like a good idea > to me. It's usual (maybe even expected) that people who maintain their > own SVN branches post the patches they're committing to gcc-patches, > so I don't think we could be accused of spamming the list or asking for > anything inappropriate. > > I just have a feeling that having an SVN branch would go more smoothly > than posting patches to the list but maintaining them elsewhere. > I also think that an SVN branch is a better idea than Launchpad, and I agree with both Chung-Lin's and Richard's arguments. Ira
_______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
