On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 08:53:31AM -0500, Steven J. Hill wrote: > > The ARM NPTL work was based on trunk at that time (and subsequently merged > > from newer trunk) precisely because the incomplete and undocumented merges > > made it infeasible to work based on the NPTL branch without getting > > regressions relative to trunk. > > > No, when I began the NPTL work there was no one from Code Sourcery that > even hinted another architecture was being worked on.
May I point out that these two statements don't disagree? When you began the NPTL work we weren't working on an ARM NPTL port. It wasn't until a whole lot later. I assure you, if we'd been working on one ourselves back when you were asking me NPTL questions, I'd have let you know. We'd have been much happier working together. I don't think revisiting the unfortunate circumstances is going to get us anywhere. Is there some way we can move on, and end up with a unified port? I don't care how we end up with an up-to-date branch as long as we do; from my experience with long-running branch development I tend to think that Joseph is right and that rebasing on top of a clean trunk branch is the way to go. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
