* 32-64 branch?
@ 2007-06-19 22:48 Andrew Cagney
2007-06-20 1:35 ` Kris Van Hees
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2007-06-19 22:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: krix.van.hees; +Cc: frysk
Kris,
On IRC you mentioned:
Jun 19 15:11:15 SqRoot mjw: For tomorrow's meeting, we won't be able to
use a std frysk build due to the two particular windows being disabled
on x86_64, and it needing an x86_64 either way to show the problems.
can I suggest cutting a branch and putting the changes there? That way
we can access them and build locally if needed.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: 32-64 branch?
2007-06-19 22:48 32-64 branch? Andrew Cagney
@ 2007-06-20 1:35 ` Kris Van Hees
2007-06-20 13:23 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Kris Van Hees @ 2007-06-20 1:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: krix.van.hees, frysk
I'd typically do that because it is indeed the easiest way to ensure
that you can access the same source code. In this case however I think
it is major overkill, because the changes are minimal. I'll be posting
a diff that can be fed to patch prior to the meeting so everyone will
have the minimal changes. It's really just enabling the two windows so
the problems with them can be demonstrated.
Cheers,
Kris
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:37:16PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Kris,
>
> On IRC you mentioned:
>
> Jun 19 15:11:15 SqRoot mjw: For tomorrow's meeting, we won't be able to
> use a std frysk build due to the two particular windows being disabled
> on x86_64, and it needing an x86_64 either way to show the problems.
>
> can I suggest cutting a branch and putting the changes there? That way
> we can access them and build locally if needed.
>
> Andrew
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: 32-64 branch?
2007-06-20 1:35 ` Kris Van Hees
@ 2007-06-20 13:23 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2007-06-20 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kris Van Hees; +Cc: frysk
Kris,
Branching is cheap (even allowing for CVS); and it lets us cite the code
base against which discussion was held. I can always cut one myself.
Andrew
Kris Van Hees wrote:
> I'd typically do that because it is indeed the easiest way to ensure
> that you can access the same source code. In this case however I think
> it is major overkill, because the changes are minimal. I'll be posting
> a diff that can be fed to patch prior to the meeting so everyone will
> have the minimal changes. It's really just enabling the two windows so
> the problems with them can be demonstrated.
>
> Cheers,
> Kris
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 06:37:16PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>> Kris,
>>
>> On IRC you mentioned:
>>
>> Jun 19 15:11:15 SqRoot mjw: For tomorrow's meeting, we won't be able to
>> use a std frysk build due to the two particular windows being disabled
>> on x86_64, and it needing an x86_64 either way to show the problems.
>>
>> can I suggest cutting a branch and putting the changes there? That way
>> we can access them and build locally if needed.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-06-20 12:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-06-19 22:48 32-64 branch? Andrew Cagney
2007-06-20 1:35 ` Kris Van Hees
2007-06-20 13:23 ` Andrew Cagney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).