Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-05-18 Thread Martin Pool
On 18 May 2011 10:23, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > On 17/05/11 17:01, Martin Pool wrote: >> >> I wanted to share with you some numbers on our changes in bzr 2.4 (final >> in August), based on the much-appreciated feedback from Linaro.    The >> details are in >>

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-05-18 Thread Andrew Stubbs
On 17/05/11 17:01, Martin Pool wrote: I wanted to share with you some numbers on our changes in bzr 2.4 (final in August), based on the much-appreciated feedback from Linaro.The details are in but the short story is that l

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-05-17 Thread Martin Pool
On 15 March 2011 20:57, Michael Hope wrote: > > I prefer bzr over svn for this project for reasons that are better > discussed over a beer... > > I've updated the BzrTips page on the wiki: > https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/BzrTips > > with links out to Andrew's, Loic's, and Marti

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-22 Thread Michael Hope
Hi Robert. The builds end up at: http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/ and include the times for each step such as: http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-linaro-4.5+bzr99475/logs/armv7l-maverick-cbuild49-carina6-cortexa9r1/gcc-build.time http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-linaro-4.5+bzr99

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-17 Thread Martin Pool
We (especially jameinel) looked into this a bit more, and he has a patch that speeds up some of these cases quite a lot: . Martin ___ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-15 Thread Martin Pool
On 15 March 2011 22:44, Loïc Minier wrote: >> >   7) merge to trunk (with the inevitable ChangeLog merge failure >> >      that you mentioned). > >  bzr has plugins to merge changelog entries for some types of >  changelogs; I wonder whether we could use these here.  Another option >  would be to

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-15 Thread Michael Hope
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > Richard may know all this, but I'm just going to post anyway in case some > people reading can benefit from some tips. > > I find that bzr is slow - there's no getting around it, but there are some > tricks that can help. > > On 14/03/11 11:

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-15 Thread Loïc Minier
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011, Andrew Stubbs wrote: > I find that bzr is slow - there's no getting around it, but there > are some tricks that can help. Thanks for sharing your tips; also noteworthy, this tip by Martin Pool: http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/linaro-dev/2011-March/003282.html > I find

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-15 Thread Andrew Stubbs
Richard may know all this, but I'm just going to post anyway in case some people reading can benefit from some tips. I find that bzr is slow - there's no getting around it, but there are some tricks that can help. On 14/03/11 11:12, Richard Sandiford wrote: My concern was that, again with my

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-14 Thread Martin Pool
On 15 March 2011 08:59, Michael Hope wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >>> Short story is that we have a better tool than svn, so feature >>> branches may make some use cases overall easier and more transparent. >> >> Well, as you say, the size of GCC and its h

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-14 Thread Michael Hope
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >> Short story is that we have a better tool than svn, so feature >> branches may make some use cases overall easier and more transparent. > > Well, as you say, the size of GCC and its history is pushing the limits > of bzr a bit.  For bug

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-14 Thread Richard Sandiford
I realise this reply is academic; I'm happy to accept the decision. For the record though... Michael Hope writes: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Richard Sandiford > wrote: >> On 9 March 2011 20:56, Michael Hope wrote: >>> We currently use a feature branch / merge request / merge / test / >

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-13 Thread Michael Hope
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:51 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > On 9 March 2011 20:56, Michael Hope wrote: >> We currently use a feature branch / merge request / merge / test / >> push approach in gcc-linaro.  This works fine for a reasonable cost >> but can mean that patches sit unreviewed and unme

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-10 Thread Richard Sandiford
On 9 March 2011 20:56, Michael Hope wrote: > We currently use a feature branch / merge request / merge / test / > push approach in gcc-linaro.  This works fine for a reasonable cost > but can mean that patches sit unreviewed and unmerged for up to a > month.  Ramana, Andrew, and I had a talk about

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-09 Thread Michael Hope
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:36 AM, James Westby wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:09:21 +1300, Michael Hope > wrote: >> >  * How frequently do problems get through review that are found by the >> >    test suite? >> >> Ideally the test suite should have been run before the review and have >> shown

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-09 Thread James Westby
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 11:09:21 +1300, Michael Hope wrote: > >  * How frequently do problems get through review that are found by the > >    test suite? > > Ideally the test suite should have been run before the review and have > shown no regressions. That's how upstream does it. GCC is > complic

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-09 Thread Michael Hope
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 10:28 AM, James Westby wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:56:27 +1300, Michael Hope > wrote: >> We currently use a feature branch / merge request / merge / test / >> push approach in gcc-linaro.  This works fine for a reasonable cost >> but can mean that patches sit unreview

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-09 Thread James Westby
On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:56:27 +1300, Michael Hope wrote: > We currently use a feature branch / merge request / merge / test / > push approach in gcc-linaro. This works fine for a reasonable cost > but can mean that patches sit unreviewed and unmerged for up to a > month. Ramana, Andrew, and I ha

Re: Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-09 Thread Robert Nelson
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Michael Hope wrote: > We currently use a feature branch / merge request / merge / test / > push approach in gcc-linaro.  This works fine for a reasonable cost > but can mean that patches sit unreviewed and unmerged for up to a > month.  Ramana, Andrew, and I had a t

Better reviews for the same cost in gcc-linaro

2011-03-09 Thread Michael Hope
We currently use a feature branch / merge request / merge / test / push approach in gcc-linaro. This works fine for a reasonable cost but can mean that patches sit unreviewed and unmerged for up to a month. Ramana, Andrew, and I had a talk about this earlier in the week and I've written up the id