From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16287 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2008 16:32:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 16258 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jul 2008 16:32:27 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_MX,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:32:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6PGVwcJ017504; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:31:58 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6PGVvEm014510; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:31:57 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-10-118.bos.redhat.com [10.16.10.118]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m6PGVu8A016111; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:31:56 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id E269E37824B; Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:31:55 -0600 (MDT) To: Elena Zannoni Cc: Phil Muldoon , Frysk List , Project Archer Subject: Re: meeting References: <48879E2E.5040200@redhat.com> <4889CF65.1090307@oracle.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey X-Attribution: Tom Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:32:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4889CF65.1090307@oracle.com> (Elena Zannoni's message of "Fri\, 25 Jul 2008 09\:04\:37 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.58 on 172.16.52.254 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-q3/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 [ CCing archer list ] Elena> 1. how come not just a simple branch of gdb? It would seem the Elena> simplest alternative for doing merges? CVS is a pain to work with. Elena> 2. I think a wise idea would be to settle on a set of host/targets Elena> combinations that should always work on Elena> archer. Ie those should be tested before doing a check in. Perhaps we can solve it after the fact by running auto-builders and asking people to fix any regressions they inadvertently introduce. Or maybe we could try to have some kind of multi-machine patch testing queue. I would like to avoid having a lot of individual overhead on each patch; many patches will be architecture-neutral. So, automation at some point in the process is important. Tom