Re: [PATCH v2 1a/10] sysdeps/tile support

Re: [PATCH v2 1a/10] sysdeps/tile support

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Chris Metcalf wrote:

> On the other hand, maybe I am confused.  I was assuming that CVS was still
> the primary vehicle for managing glibc, and the git repository was just

No, CVS is just for accessing old history (some parts of which are rather 
a mess in git and are much easier to follow in CVS - the heuristics used 
to merge commits with per-file log messages didn't work that well for all 
of the history) and linuxthreads/linuxthreads_db history (those were never 
converted to git at all).

Overseers, the welcome message Chris got had misleading references to CVS.  
I don't know where the mapping from projects to services mentioned in that 
message is, but could someone fix it so that it refers to git instead of 
CVS for glibc?  A recent discussion on the GDB mailing list mentioned a 
reference to GNATS which is long out-of-date for GDB (and glibc), so maybe 
the mapping to bug-tracking systems also needs reviewing.

> So if I make my changes in git, should I ask someone to pull my tree (like
> how Linux is managed) or do I push my changes directly to the master git
> repository?  I haven't used the latter workflow before, so if someone has
> some notes on what the right thing to do is, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks!

You should push directly (in the case of ports).  "git push origin" should 
suffice if your master branch has just the changes you want to push (as 
clean, logical commits, complete with ChangeLog entries, etc.).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: [PATCH v2 1a/10] sysdeps/tile support

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 01:16:42AM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, maybe I am confused.  I was assuming that CVS was still
>> the primary vehicle for managing glibc, and the git repository was just
>
>No, CVS is just for accessing old history (some parts of which are rather 
>a mess in git and are much easier to follow in CVS - the heuristics used 
>to merge commits with per-file log messages didn't work that well for all 
>of the history) and linuxthreads/linuxthreads_db history (those were never 
>converted to git at all).
>
>Overseers, the welcome message Chris got had misleading references to CVS.  
>I don't know where the mapping from projects to services mentioned in that 
>message is, but could someone fix it so that it refers to git instead of 
>CVS for glibc?  A recent discussion on the GDB mailing list mentioned a 
>reference to GNATS which is long out-of-date for GDB (and glibc), so maybe 
>the mapping to bug-tracking systems also needs reviewing.

I don't know how git fits into the sourceware access restrictions but
I'm going to just pull all reference to bug tracking and source control
from the welcome message.

Do people with git write access really need an ssh account on sourceware?

cgf

Re: [PATCH v2 1a/10] sysdeps/tile support

[Andreas Schwab]

Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>
writes:

> Do people with git write access really need an ssh account on sourceware?

git write access uses ssh for authentication.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."