I have managed large development projects in the past (more than 20 developers) and I also suggest for everyone to focus their efforts on the master branch even if it will be badly broken after the merge.
Just my two cents ... Sergio On 11/23/09 5:20 AM, "Rob Landley" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday 22 November 2009 21:26:56 Mike Frysinger wrote: >> On Sunday 22 November 2009 22:19:47 Austin Foxley wrote: >>> First step towards sanity: Let me commit the nptl_merge branch to >>> master. If you haven't looked at it, I've got all the relevant changes >>> for nptl grouped into related commits, and it's up to date with master >>> as of today. >>> >>> I'm going ahead with Step 1 in a day or so, unless someone yells loudly. >> >> i would like to go through it first, at least as a "fresh set of eyes". i >> dont want to see more accidental merge commits throwing out good code. >> -mike > > More code review's always nice, but it's been pending for three years now. > Couldn't a fresh set of eyes go through it as easily after the merge as > before? > > The nptl merge _will_ break stuff. We can't prevent that. But once it's in > -dev, we can all test it, and we can fix it. > > Rob _______________________________________________ uClibc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
