This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: follow-up on tile architecture changes
- From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf at tilera dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:08:13 -0500
- Subject: Re: follow-up on tile architecture changes
- References: <4EE66C80.3040600@tilera.com> <20111213025158.50E9B2C098@topped-with-meat.com> <4EE8C111.4020002@tilera.com> <20111214173352.66CB62C0A6@topped-with-meat.com>
On 12/14/2011 12:33 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> Should this be one branch per change? Or should I queue a number of
>> changes into one branch that I can use for staging all my core changes,
>> e.g., "cmetcalf/tile/"?
> If the changes are not directly interdependent, then one branch per change
> is easier for selective merging. (Of course, you can structure the names
> of the branches however you like, e.g. putting them all under cmetcalf/tile/.)
I went ahead and created a cmetcalf/tile_elf_h branch, following the
instructions in http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/GlibcGit. If that's
structurally the kind of thing you were looking for, that would be good to
know.
But based on the recent exchange between you and Joseph Myers I suspect it
may make as much sense for me to directly commit the Tile-specific changes
to the core. So I'll repost the series of changes; let me know if they are
suitable for directly committing or whether you would like to commit them,
and if so, whether I should create branches like the tile_elf_h branch for
them.
Thanks a lot!
--
Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
http://www.tilera.com