[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline] |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:15:47 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: Andrew Suffield <address@hidden>
> Huh, interesting timing. I've been thinking about this problem for a
> week or two, and started to put together some of the intrastructure it
> needs.
> Certainly gcc is a good example of a project which this problem, but
> I'm not convinced their approach is the best solution. A PQM-driven
> mainline that only allows commits which do not cause regressions is
> probably what they really want. But it's easy enough to handle what
> they currently do.
I thought about a PQM-driven Aegis-like protected mainline but I don't
think it works out unless you do it in a _fairly_ hairy way.
GCC commits happen too fast (last I checked) to serialize them while
inserting tests between each one.
I.e., just naively dropping a "make test" call into your PQM just
before the "tla commit" --- probably the commit queue will grow
without bound (until the developers notice and say, hey, this isn't
working :-).
-t
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Jan Hudec, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Charles Duffy, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Tom Lord, 2004/06/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Colin Walters, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Tom Lord, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Colin Walters, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Tom Lord, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Robert Collins, 2004/06/26
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline],
Tom Lord <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Colin Walters, 2004/06/22
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Tom Lord, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Jan Hudec, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Tom Lord, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Andrew Suffield, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Tom Lord, 2004/06/23
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], James Blackwell, 2004/06/23
[Gnu-arch-users] round 2 of GCC v. Arch, Tom Lord, 2004/06/23
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Colin Walters, 2004/06/23
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] GCC v. Arch address@hidden: Regressions on mainline], Tobias C. Rittweiler, 2004/06/23