Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 10:43:34 -0800 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: freebsd@bdragon.rtk0.net, "freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: External GCC Update Message-ID: <8f39c0e0-1c65-bcc9-a674-5692a79d478c@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201902230405.x1N45h1i028519@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <201902230405.x1N45h1i028519@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/22/19 8:05 PM, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >> 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. The "run screaming" is about the ideas, not the amount of code. It's similar to posting to arch@ to say "I have this idea and proof-of-concept, does this look like the right path so I should spend time refining it into the a review-ready product, or should I drop it". I never said I would not use phab, so stop putting words in my mouth. This is not unusual project practice to get "idea" review before detailed code review. >> 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 :-( No. Phab is the preferred tool, but it is not the only tool as was clearly noted in the recent recommendation. As I said above, I will push the actual patches for review to phab when the time comes, but they aren't ready for that yet and I'm trying to get a review of the ideas to determine how to spend my time. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?8f39c0e0-1c65-bcc9-a674-5692a79d478c>