On 03/04/2024 14:23, Christophe Lyon via Gcc wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 14:59, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>
>> Another possible issue which may be better now than in years past
>> is that the versions of autoconf/automake required often had to be
>> installed by hand. I think newlib has gotten
Hi Jonathan,
On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 03:20:42PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Apr 2024, 15:02 Mark Wielaard, wrote:
> > The jit mailinglist is the same. It only has one moderator
> > (David). Having a second/backup one would probably be nice. Are you ok
> > to be added there?
>
>
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024, 15:02 Mark Wielaard, wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 01:32:11PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gdb wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Apr 2024, 22:36 Mark Wielaard, wrote:
> > > wrt to the mailinglists maybe getting larger patches, I think most
> > > will still be under 400K
Hi Jonathan,
On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 01:32:11PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gdb wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Apr 2024, 22:36 Mark Wielaard, wrote:
> > wrt to the mailinglists maybe getting larger patches, I think most
> > will still be under 400K and I wouldn't raise the limit (because most
> > such larger
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024, 22:36 Mark Wielaard, wrote:
> wrt to the mailinglists maybe getting larger patches, I think most
> will still be under 400K and I wouldn't raise the limit (because most
> such larger emails are really just spam). But we might want to get
> more mailinglist moderators.
>
>
Hi,
On Fri, 2024-04-05 at 09:17 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On 4/4/24 23:35, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > wrt to the mailinglists maybe getting larger patches, I think most
> > will still be under 400K and I wouldn't raise the limit (because most
> > such larger emails are really just spam). But
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 at 10:12, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 03.04.2024 15:11, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 10:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>
> >> On 03.04.2024 10:22, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >>> Dear release managers and developers,
> >>>
> >>> TL;DR: For the sake of improving
Hi Mark,
On 4/4/24 23:35, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi Christophe,
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon via Gdb wrote:
TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
that we now
Mark Wielaard writes:
Hello Mark!
> gcc-patches, binutils and gdb-patches all have only one moderator
> (Jeff, Ian and Thiago). It would probably be good if there were
> more.
>
> Any volunteers? It shouldn't be more than 1 to 3 emails a week
> (sadly most of them spam).
If still needed, I
On 2024-04-04 17:35, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Christophe,
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon via Gdb wrote:
>> TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
>> workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
>> that we
Hi Christophe,
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon via Gdb wrote:
> TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
> workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
> that we now include regenerated files. This was discussed during
On 03.04.2024 15:11, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 10:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> On 03.04.2024 10:22, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>> Dear release managers and developers,
>>>
>>> TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
>>> workflows, I’d like to
On 4/3/24 4:22 AM, Christophe Lyon via Gdb wrote:
> Dear release managers and developers,
>
> TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
> workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
> that we now include regenerated files. This was discussed
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 14:59, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> Another possible issue which may be better now than in years past
> is that the versions of autoconf/automake required often had to be
> installed by hand. I think newlib has gotten better but before the
> rework on its Makefile/configure, I
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 12:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 03.04.2024 10:57, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 03.04.2024 10:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Any concerns/objections?
> >>>
>
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 10:30, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> On 03.04.2024 10:22, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > Dear release managers and developers,
> >
> > TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
> > workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
> > that
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 6:23 AM Jan Beulich via Gcc wrote:
> On 03.04.2024 10:57, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 03.04.2024 10:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Any concerns/objections?
Another possible issue which may be better now than in years past
is that the versions of autoconf/automake required often had to be
installed by hand. I think newlib has gotten better but before the
rework on its Makefile/configure, I had a special install of autotools
which precisely matched
On 03.04.2024 10:57, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 03.04.2024 10:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
Any concerns/objections?
>>>
>>> I'm all for it, in fact I've been sending it like that myself
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 09:46, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > Any concerns/objections?
>
> I'm all for it, in fact I've been sending it like that myself for years
> even when the policy said not to. In most cases, the diff for
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 03.04.2024 10:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >> Any concerns/objections?
> >
> > I'm all for it, in fact I've been sending it like that myself for years
> > even when the policy said not
On 03.04.2024 10:45, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>> Any concerns/objections?
>
> I'm all for it, in fact I've been sending it like that myself for years
> even when the policy said not to. In most cases, the diff for the
> regenerated
On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 10:22:24AM +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Any concerns/objections?
I'm all for it, in fact I've been sending it like that myself for years
even when the policy said not to. In most cases, the diff for the
regenerated files is very small and it helps even in patch review
On 03.04.2024 10:22, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> Dear release managers and developers,
>
> TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
> workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
> that we now include regenerated files. This was discussed during
Dear release managers and developers,
TL;DR: For the sake of improving precommit CI coverage and simplifying
workflows, I’d like to request a patch submission policy change, so
that we now include regenerated files. This was discussed during the
last GNU toolchain office hours meeting [1]
25 matches
Mail list logo
