[PATCH] implement futimes
Sergio M. Ammirata, Ph.D.
sergio at ammirata.net
Mon Nov 23 14:50:09 UTC 2009
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" <rob at landley.net> 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
More information about the uClibc
mailing list