Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 20:05:43 -0800 (PST) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>, freebsd@bdragon.rtk0.net, "freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: External GCC Update Message-ID: <201902230405.x1N45h1i028519@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfq55vyAzNq%2BYC6cse1BPGA0%2BZyzFPSmBcNM71hDCZh64Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 5:09 PM John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > On 2/22/19 11:45 AM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > >> I was recently able to install base/binutils and base/gcc into an amd64 > > VM > > >> and do a self-hosted build and install. Some of the port patches have > > been > > >> committed from this, but I have some source patches before the final > > ports > > >> patches can be finished. > > >> > > >> The source patches are here: > > >> https://github.com/bsdjhb/freebsd/compare/master...base_gcc > > > > > > Phabricator? > > > > Eventually, wanted a first cut of the entire patchset in context to see if > > folks run screaming or not. Huh? It is 5 files and not even 200 lines of diff??? My first Phab review for CPU topology was 10 files and over 300 lines. > > Thank you. Phabricator isn't good with larger patches. Git let's me see > things in a number of different views that are hard with the one size fits > all phab ui. Its rather hypocritical for core to announce a "recomendation to do reviews, and the tool of choice is phabricator" and then have 2 core team members advocate a code review in git just a short time later. This sets bad examples from the top :-( > Warner > > John Baldwin -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201902230405.x1N45h1i028519>