[LLVMdev] Downstream distributions as first class citizens in the LLVM repository

[Tom Stellard]

On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 06:47:51AM +0700, "C. Bergstr?m" wrote:
> <snip />
> 
> May I just add a few points
> 
> 1) Won't get rid of forks - ever.. forget it
> 2) Branches are "free" - having a single branch for dumping things is 
> unlikely to suit the needs of all the work by everyone

I think that having a single stable branch would be the most efficient way to
track bug fixes for older versions, and help reduce the maintenance
burden on people distributing LLVM.  If the stable branch doesn't suit
someone's needs then they can still maintain their own branches using the
stable branch as a base.  This would be my preference.

That being said, I think the multiple vendor branches would still be
an improvement over what we have now, and I would sign up for a
Mesa branch if this is the way the community decides to go.

-Tom

> 3) Having things consolidated in one more or less easy to find place is 
> better than all over the damn place.


> ------------
> I'd vote to give FBSD and anyone "reasonable" a branch to contribute 
> whatever they feel is worth it. Assuming FreeBSD agrees to keep this 
> "upstream" branch in align with whatever they have in the ports tree - 
> it makes the patches they are carrying a lot more visible and 
> /potentially/ easier for keeping in sync with upstream.
> 
> Can anyone from NetBSD or FreeBSD chime in on this - would it be a 
> reasonable request for ports + the branch to stay in sync?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev