From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.pbcl.net ([88.198.119.4] helo=hetzner.pbcl.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QWPyj-0004JA-6u for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:32:09 +0200 Received: from cambridge.roku.com ([81.142.160.137] helo=[172.30.1.145]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QWPvS-00040w-D8 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 14 Jun 2011 11:28:46 +0200 From: Phil Blundell To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: References: <1307955075.6879.11.camel@lenovo.internal.reciva.com> Organization: Phil Blundell Consulting Ltd Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 10:28:45 +0100 Message-ID: <1308043725.25285.232.camel@phil-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] Upgrade gcc 4.6.0 to latest on FSF 4.6 branch X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:32:09 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 10:12 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 21:03 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > >> This patch brings in new patches from gcc 4.6 FSF branch > >> And refreshes the headers of existing backported patches > >> to not have git patch numbers in comments > >> > >> I am not sending the patch itself to mailing list due to its > >> large size so please review it on the contrib tree itself > >> > > > > Would we not be better off just pulling the tip of the 4.6 branch from > > FSF SVN, rather than having to keep all these patches in git? > > > > there is dislike for this approach in oe-core. As the release point is preferred > I suggested to drop the minor release number and call the recipes 4.6 > and use SVN > REVs to track the recipe updates but it did not fly :) Where does that dislike come from? Koen did make a comment about having liked svn checkouts for 4.5 "very, very much" but I couldn't quite figure out whether he was being sarcastic or not and, if so, what exactly his objection was. I could understand there being a preference for individual patchsets if we were just going to cherry-pick carefully selected bugfixes from the branch and patch them in. But, if we're going to take the approach of just importing everything from the branch en masse, it seems like keeping them as patches is just making more work for ourselves. We're using svn checkouts for eglibc, which seems to be working well enough and hasn't provoked any particular outrage that I noticed. p.