posix threading plans

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sunday 06 May 2007, Steven J. Hill wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > I don't think revisiting the unfortunate circumstances is going to get
> > us anywhere.  Is there some way we can move on, and end up with a
> > unified port?  I don't care how we end up with an up-to-date branch as
> > long as we do; from my experience with long-running branch development
> > I tend to think that Joseph is right and that rebasing on top of a
> > clean trunk branch is the way to go.
>
> Do whatever you guys want and I will deal with it.

this isnt exactly a helpful stance to take ...

so what i'm hearing is:
 - mips/nptl only exists in branches/uClibc-nptl/
 - the uClibc-nptl branch is in an unrecoverable state compared to trunk
 - arm/nptl exists against trunk
 - sjhill's work and codesourcery's work have some design decisions that need 
to be reconciled

Carmelo: what's the status of the SuperH stuff ?

so it would seem the best way forward is to rebranch trunk and move 
mips/arm/sh to that ... then once that has settled, we can move that branch 
back to trunk ... i have some things i'd like done for trunk, but nothing 
critical so it can wait (build system changes)

seems like it'd be sane to bring at least Joseph and Carmelo on board ?
-mike
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 827 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://busybox.net/lists/uclibc/attachments/20070506/a5afb4ed/attachment.pgp