Re: Tile changes

["Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at systemhalted dot org>]

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:48 AM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> The 2.15 release hasn't been rolled out yet because I'm reviewing failures,
>> but I hope to get that done this weekend and roll the release.
>
> Well, 2.15 release (= 2.15.0) is the position of the annotated tags for
> that release, which were created for libc on 25 December by Ulrich and for
> ports on 3 January by me. ?It's the tarballs that haven't yet been
> created. ?If there are problems with the code in 2.15 release, they may of
> course be addressed on 2.15 branch, and at some point tags and release
> tarballs of 2.15.1 release made.

Correct.

>> I will tell you right now that I'm not entirely comfortable adding a new
>> architecture to a stable release and I will be seeking strong rationale from
>> you and the community if you make a backport request to add TILE to the
>> stable 2.15 branch.
>
> The port is there (in ports) - it was checked into ports well before 2.15
> was tagged and branched. ?But some of the libc changes it depends on
> weren't fully reviewed and revised as needed before the release and branch
> - so actually using the port in 2.15 needs backports of those libc
> changes. ?The question is what risk they pose for other architectures -
> whether it's safe to backport them so the Tile architectures work fully in
> 2.15 or whether it would be better for Chris to create his own branch,
> based on 2.15, for Tile users of 2.15, that has the few extra changes
> needed.

Agreed.

I haven't reviewed the patches yet, but having a 2.15 TILE branch would
make it easier to review what needs merging and provide TILE with a
temporary upstream branch to use for building.

Cheers,
Carlos.