Re: Pushing to diverged branches

2011-05-05 Thread Martin Pool
On 5 May 2011 18:19, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > On 05/05/11 16:22, Martin Pool wrote: >> >> I filed  to track >> this.  I think it will have been improved a fair bit by John's recent >> work on huge-tree workingtree performance work (which sped up so

Re: Pushing to diverged branches

2011-05-05 Thread Andrew Stubbs
On 05/05/11 16:22, Martin Pool wrote: I filed to track this. I think it will have been improved a fair bit by John's recent work on huge-tree workingtree performance work (which sped up some things like revert 8x) but there's probably more to

Re: Pushing to diverged branches

2011-05-05 Thread Martin Pool
On 5 May 2011 17:08, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > On 05/05/11 15:42, Martin Pool wrote: >> >> I'd like to know more about the case where it's slow, because we have >> fixed up some of the other performance issues that were biting Linaro. >>  Could you tell me more, or if you like file a bug at >>

Re: Pushing to diverged branches

2011-05-05 Thread Andrew Stubbs
On 05/05/11 15:42, Martin Pool wrote: I'd like to know more about the case where it's slow, because we have fixed up some of the other performance issues that were biting Linaro. Could you tell me more, or if you like file a bug at saying what you're running on wh

Re: Pushing to diverged branches

2011-05-05 Thread Martin Pool
On 5 May 2011 10:32, Richard Sandiford wrote: > Andrew Stubbs writes: >> On 05/05/11 08:43, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> Anyway, the bzr help page seemed to suggest that merging in the new >>> 4.6 revision was the Right Thing to do.  I'm afraid that, once again, >>> it felt so natural to resolve

[ACTIVITY] May 1-5

2011-05-05 Thread Revital Eres
Hello, [1] Regarding the patch 'Support closing_branch_deps' http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-03/msg00350.html Continued discussions with Ayal Zaks (SMS maintainer) regrading this patch. (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-05/msg00250.html) I'm now working on simplifying the patch for r

[ACTIVITY] May 1-5

2011-05-05 Thread Ira Rosen
Hi, - backported vzip fix to GCC 4.5 and 4.6 (PR 48252) - merged auto-detection of vector size patch to gcc-linaro 4.6 - started looking into vectorization of ffmpeg Ira ___ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.

Re: Pushing to diverged branches

2011-05-05 Thread Andrew Stubbs
On 05/05/11 09:32, Richard Sandiford wrote: But just to be clear, in the kind of situation where person A has pushed a new revision while person B was doing a merge, what should person B do when the push fails? Should they undo the local merge, pull, then merge again? Or is there a better way?

Re: Pushing to diverged branches

2011-05-05 Thread Richard Sandiford
Andrew Stubbs writes: > On 05/05/11 08:43, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Anyway, the bzr help page seemed to suggest that merging in the new >> 4.6 revision was the Right Thing to do. I'm afraid that, once again, >> it felt so natural to resolve push conflicts this way that I didn't even >> questio

Re: Pushing to diverged branches

2011-05-05 Thread Andrew Stubbs
On 05/05/11 08:43, Richard Sandiford wrote: Anyway, the bzr help page seemed to suggest that merging in the new 4.6 revision was the Right Thing to do. I'm afraid that, once again, it felt so natural to resolve push conflicts this way that I didn't even question the assumption. I did the merge,

Re: Pushing to diverged branches

2011-05-05 Thread Richard Sandiford
Sorry for all the trouble. Andrew Stubbs writes: > On 04/05/11 17:48, Andrew Stubbs wrote: >> What Richard must have done is merged lp:gcc-linaro/4.6 *to* his >> development branch, and then pushed that branch with --overwrite, thus >> rewriting history. :( For the record, I certainly didn't do