[OE-core] It's broken, please revert. Re: [PATCH 0/4 V4] Share gcc work directories

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 11:08 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 1 jul 2011, om 10:10 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 09:15 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 1 jul 2011, om 01:26 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
> > Testing patches is not the sole responsibility of myself and Saul. This
> > gcc patchset was on the mailing list for a considerable time and has
> > been tested in a variety of ways. Various breakage was identified found
> > and those breakages were fixed. The fact there looks to be some
> > incremental build issue with rm_work is unfortunate and likely easy to
> > fix so I think this request is a little out of proportion.
> > 
> > If someone had reported the problem before it merged it would have
> > waited until it was fixed before merging.
> 
> "They will therefore merge and I'm happy with them but it will be a few
> more days before that happens. "
> 
> I was under the impression that I still had a few more days to test
> them now that the eglibc problems have been solved. I don't think you
> can blame people for not testing gcc when eglibc was still blowing up
> in their faces.

I balanced a few different factors in the timing. Merging code like this
on a Friday with 4th July and the US going on holiday next week didn't
seem like a better time to do this so I went for something slightly
earlier. I was working on the assumption we had the eglibc issues
resolved.

> > I find it ironic you're one of the people asking to turn the autobuilder
> > red, make warnings fatal and break things for everyone as 'its the only
> > way to get people to look at and fix them; but on the other hand you're
> > unhappy if testing of patches doesn't happen on every single combination
> > of usages and something does break :/.
> 
> I was actually planning to test them today, now that eglibc works again.

Ok, sorry I wasn't aware of that.

Cheers,

Richard