* Charles Wilson wrote on Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:14:37AM CEST: > On 8/7/2010 2:36 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > FWIW, I didn't find any more objectionable things in the rest of this > > patch series, so whenever you have something that addresses the known > > issues, I think a public branch would be fine. > > Well, that's up to Paolo. > > > If merely additional > > testsuite items are missing, that shouldn't hold up creating a branch, > > only merging it. > > Hmm...but if I understand your last message in the other subthread, > adding a test for sysroot with "native" compilers is very very optional,
This message you are replying to is older than the other subthread. The GNU list server was down for more than 24 hours. > Ralf: do ALL of these items need solutions before the temp branch is > created? If Paolo wants to delegate, it'd certainly be easier to manage > if the basic set of patches were already in a branch, which effort > continues on these items. You can create a temp branch any time you like. Cheers, Ralf
