From: "Joe Buck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 05:16:41PM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, Diego Novillo wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 16:56, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > That aside, our current policy already allows e.g. not testing java
> > if
> > your change is to a part of the compiler that can't possible affect
> > it.
>
> I didn't make it completely clear, but my suggestion was mostly to
> help us middle/back-end hackers.
> Diego.
Yeah, that's what worries me, all roads lead through the middle-end. :-)
But if I understood the proposal correctly, auto-testers (as well as Java
developers) would continue to test Java on a daily basis, and anyone
submitting a patch that caused breakage would be responsible for fixing
the damage or reverting. If problems are always detected within one day,
the opportunities for rot are limited.
Fundamentally, our philosophy has been to catch errors *before* they get
into the repository. Sure one day of breaking the trunk isn't so bad, but
when it breaks it affects hundreds of developers and it adds up. Everyone
separately either stops and waits, or tracks down which patch it was and
reverts it so they can continue working. Either way lots of time is wasted,
and this serves as a counter argument against the time spent testing patches
with java enabled. I suspect some people run their tests overnight, in that
case it doesn't matter if the regtest takes 2 hours or 5. Either way the
results will be waiting for you in the morning.
I don't like the idea of taking java out, but if we do I suggest we swap in
objc++. That would only add 42 seconds to the bootstrap and test process.
:-)
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg01763.html
--Kaveh
