This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the libc-ports project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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

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reference to GNATS which is long out-of-date for GDB (and glibc), so maybe 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

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]