posix threading plans
Daniel Jacobowitz
drow at false.org
Sun May 6 15:42:35 UTC 2007
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
More information about the uClibc
mailing list