--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
Re: [wwwdocs] Update status of gomp-branch |
Date: |
Tue, 7 Sep 2004 23:19:49 +0200 (CEST) |
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Diego Novillo wrote:
There is renewed interest in OpenMP support. I've rebranched
gomp-branch to use mainline instead of tree-ssa. This patch updates the
branch entry.
Okay.
Do you want to describe some convention to mark patches sent to
gcc-patches (like using [gomp] in the subject) and describe the
maintenance policy (who my apply/approve changes to that branch)?
Gerald
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Subject: |
Re: [wwwdocs] Update status of gomp-branch |
Date: |
Wed, 8 Sep 2004 00:00:42 +0000 (UTC) |
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Diego Novillo wrote:
> There is renewed interest in OpenMP support. I've rebranched
> gomp-branch to use mainline instead of tree-ssa. This patch updates the
> branch entry.
You seem to be editing the entry in the "Inactive Development Branches"
section. Shouldn't gomp-01-branch stay there as an inactive branch, with
a new entry as an active branch for the new branch?
In addition to commit policies it would also be a good idea to have some
indication of where discussions relating to the branch go - which, if it
is intended for possible merge to mainline, should include the main gcc
list for any matters of design of relevance to the rest of the compiler.
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/#c90status - status of C90 for GCC 3.5
address@hidden (personal mail)
address@hidden (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)
--- End Message ---