[cfe-dev] moving the clang-omp merge along

[Alp Toker]

On 29/05/2014 04:21, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Philip,
>     From observing many merges in FSF gcc over the years, it is crazy 
> to take a new branch, selectively pull in small sections

"Crazy"? Selectively pulling in small chunks is the only realistic way 
to deal with the task.

> and then take long breaks where the two start to rapidly fork. If a 
> branch is to be merged, the process should at least be scheduled such 
> that the process will take place over a known period of time so 
> attempts can be made to keep the two in sync or at least keep track of 
> where the two have begun to diverge. At the moment, there are quite a 
> few files introduced from clang-omp that are no longer in sync and the 
> svn web browser access doesn't seem to allow you to easily view the 
> commit history on individual files

Jack, are you seriously talking about taking on a merge of this scale 
using the *SVN web interface*.. and then complaining about that to Philip?

There are tools for that: Consider using clang's own 
format/tooling/refactoring together with git to track upstream changes 
and automate the sync work for your out-of-tree branch.

It's no wonder you're getting stuck if you were trying to coordinate the 
effort with WebSVN, after all the one thing you can be sure of is that 
upstream code won't stay still in the LLVM project.

Alp.



> to see if they have been changed since the original commits.
>              Jack
>
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 8:25 PM, Philip Reames 
> <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote:
>
>     I would strongly recommend that you get your current branch in
>     sync with clang-TOT as a first step.  Once this done, you should
>     separate individual patches and submit them for review. Based on
>     previous history, the community is unlikely to accept a single
>     massive change set.
>
>     p.s. The tone of your last sentence is less than ideal. These are
>     the folks actually working on getting the work you are interested
>     merged into upstream.  You should thank them, not critique them. 
>     (I'm not one of them, btw.)
>
>     Philip
>
>
>     On 05/28/2014 03:19 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
>>     Andrey Bokhanko expressed interest in getting the clang-omp
>>     merge done in time for the 3.5 release but wants guidance on the
>>     process. I suggested starting with the creation a new clang-omp
>>     branch upstream rebased on clang trunk  for generation of merge
>>     patch. Unfortunately merging the  current changes from the
>>     clang-omp (based on clang 3.4) to a clang-omp (based on clang
>>     trunk)  looks very difficult as selective patches have been
>>     committed into clang trunk from clang-omp and don't appear to
>>     have been kept synchronized with the current changes from
>>     upstream. Does anyone know if these new files from previous
>>     commits out of clang-omp contain any local changes which haven't
>>     been back ported to clang-omp? It would seem that postponing this
>>     merge will just make the process harder as time goes on if
>>     selective merges from clang-omp into clang trunk continue in the
>>     interim. Hopefully the folks who did the original selective
>>     commits would help detangle this mess.
>>                Jack
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     cfe-dev mailing list
>>     cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu  <mailto:cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>
>>     http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     cfe-dev mailing list
>     cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>
>     http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

-- 
http://www.nuanti.com
the browser experts