Re: On pull request workflows for the GNU toolchain
Joseph Myers <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnu.binutils,gmane.comp.gcc.devel,gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha,gmane.comp.gdb.devel,gmane.comp.gcc.fortran |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, 23 Sep 2024, enh via Gcc wrote:
> it doesn't make the patch _management_ problem better ("now i have two
> problems"), but https://github.com/landley/toybox takes the "why not both?"
> approach --- you can use pull requests if you grew up with/adapted to
> git/github, or you can use the mailing list otherwise ... taking into
> account that what the "barriers" are depend on whose eye's you're looking
> through.
My expectation is that such a split would need to work for an initial
transitional period at least (for reviews of patches posted before the
move to the forge software without requiring all such under-review patches
to go into PRs if people want review, if nothing else). While I think
there are advantages in terms of structured data if everything ends up
using PRs (including people doing PRs that are immediately self-merged of
changes in areas they maintain), it would be possible to do otherwise (at
least until you get to wanting all merges to mainline to be done by a CI
system that maintains a regression-free state for at least one
configuration).
--
Joseph S. Myers
[email protected]