Re: Ada bugs

Re: Ada bugs

[Robert Dewar]

We were not planning on a big Ada merge from the mailine to the branch before
the release, since we consider that this will diminish stability. But we
should and will check into the issue of reversions.

Re: Ada bugs

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Robert Dewar wrote:

> We were not planning on a big Ada merge from the mailine to the branch before
> the release, since we consider that this will diminish stability. But we

It will then be necessary to fix on the branch various issues already
fixed on the mainline, such as the bug box (only partially fixed on the
mainline) and the "For information on GLADE, contact Ada Core
Technologies" and similar comments in the manual.  (Simply merging the
mainline manual isn't necessarily the right solution; the branch manual
should describe the version of the code that is on the branch, not some
later or earlier version.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk

Re: Ada bugs

[Florian Weimer]

dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:

> We were not planning on a big Ada merge from the mailine to the branch before
> the release, since we consider that this will diminish stability. But we
> should and will check into the issue of reversions.

I think we should clearly label the GNAT part of the release as "work
in progress".  People will soon complain that the following things are
missing or not usable with GNAT 5.0 in GCC 3.1:

        * ASIS (I know, hardly anybody needs it ;-)
        * GLADE
        * FLORIST
        * GDB (no debugging *at all*, -gstabs might cure it)
        * GtkAda (if I recall correctly)

From a FSF point of view, these aren't regressions because this is the
first GNAT release, but former users of the public ACT version might
have different expectations.

"Branch" vs "mainline" ? [was Re: Ada bugs]

[gnat-dev]

On 02-04-17 14:32:44 Robert Dewar wrote:
| We were not planning on a big Ada merge from the mailine to the branch before
| the release, since we consider that this will diminish stability. But we
| should and will check into the issue of reversions.
=== End quoted text ===

This message confuses me totally. As far as the Ada portion of GCC is
concerned, it seems to exist +only+ on the 3.1-pre branch. It was
released to late by a day to make the 3.0.4 [mainline ?] release.

So where is the "mainline" code to be merged into the "branch"?

Or do I totally mis-understand the CVS structure and vernacular ?

I want to help w/ gcc-Ada, have been waiting for years for a chance to
make changes and get them used, but I can't start until I can understand
the working environment here.

Help !!!
-- Buz :)

--
Buz Cory of BuzCo Systems -- New York NY USA http://BuzCo.nyct.net
<gnat-dev@BuzCo.nyct.net> (Buz as GNAT Programmer)
write to <helpdesk@BuzCo.nyct.net> for FREE help with:
    Installing/Configuring Linux
    Getting started with the Ada Programming Language.
Friends don't let friends do DOS; Linux to the rescue!
Ada 95 is here! Why use an archaic, bug-prone language?

Re: "Branch" vs "mainline" ? [was Re: Ada bugs]

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 10:50:00AM -0400, gnat-dev@buzco.nyct.net wrote:
> On 02-04-17 14:32:44 Robert Dewar wrote:
> | We were not planning on a big Ada merge from the mailine to the branch before
> | the release, since we consider that this will diminish stability. But we
> | should and will check into the issue of reversions.
> === End quoted text ===
> 
> This message confuses me totally. As far as the Ada portion of GCC is
> concerned, it seems to exist +only+ on the 3.1-pre branch. It was
> released to late by a day to make the 3.0.4 [mainline ?] release.
> 
> So where is the "mainline" code to be merged into the "branch"?

The "mainline" doesn't refer to the most recent release, but to the
current development effort - which has branched away from the upcoming
3.1 release.

    |
    |\
    | \
    |  --- 3.0.x
    |
    |
    |\
    | \
    |  --- 3.1-pre
    |
    HEAD (mainline)

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer