On Monday, April 02, 2018 12:27:47 PM Ed Maste wrote:
> On 31 March 2018 at 14:41, Mark Linimon <lini...@lonesome.com> wrote:
> This is the most important point of this discussion: we do need to
> ensure there's good communication and coordination between teams where
> dependencies like this exist. I'll take the blame here: Dimitry asked
> me about merging the Clang update to stable/11 and I agreed that it
> was reasonable to merge sooner rather than later to have as much lead
> time as possible before the 11.2 process starts. I also assumed that
> outstanding Clang 6 issues in ports were farther along in being
> addressed.
> 
> The key lesson from this discussion is that for significant commits
> and merges like this one we should make sure to always have sufficient
> advance notice.

Is this driven by -mretpoline?  That is, would we not be as aggressive
with pushing for clang 6 in 11.2 if it weren't for that?  I kind of feel
like we probably wouldn't and would have left it at 5 and let clang 6 be
a FreeBSD 12 thing.  Was -mretpoline backported to clang 5 (I thought
there was some talk of providing patches for clang 5)?

-- 
John Baldwin
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to