Re: New branch for Fedora 11 merges

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:

Jan> I may be biased by the separate pathes of Fedora; AFAIK Debian
Jan> uses a single merged vendor patch for each package.

FWIW, I've been liking the current approach.  Based on my experience
with master->python merges, git makes merging very easy, and I think
merging the features into one big branch makes it harder to prep a
feature for submission.

Jan> It is more a problem of the disconnection from the valuable
Jan> community testing - the end users.
[...]
Jan> This is the visible disadvantage of the Fedora fork from FSF GDB
Jan> negatively affecting both the projects.  Trying to prevent
Jan> happending this again even with Fedora vs. Archer.

Yeah, I agree.  I'd like us not to make this situation worse.  At the
same time, I still think that developing a feature on a branch makes
for a very nice way of working.

I don't really know how to thread the needle here.  Are we not
submitting things upstream enough?  My impression is that we are doing
that as fast as we're able; there aren't many features that are
complete and unsubmitted.  In fact, maybe the only one is
archer-pmuldoon-exception-rewind.

Maybe we should spend some time sending Fedora patches upstream?  I am
happy to work on this; I just tend to prioritize development because
it is more fun :-}

One way I view our development approach is that we are just doing what
the other gdb developers do, it is just that we are doing it all in
public.  That is, we share all the intermediate steps of our work
instead of just sharing the final patch.

Anyway ... I am glad you guys brought this up.  I'd like to hear any
thoughts anybody has on this topic.  As far as I'm concerned, we can
make any change that we agree is helpful.  Send suggestions.

Tom