[RTEMS Project] #2949: Questionable patch organization in RTEMS tools and RSB

[RTEMS trac]

#2949: Questionable patch organization in RTEMS tools and RSB
-----------------------------+---------------------
 Reporter:  Sebastian Huber  |       Owner:  (none)
     Type:  defect           |      Status:  new
 Priority:  normal           |   Milestone:  4.12
Component:  General          |     Version:
 Severity:  normal           |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                   |
-----------------------------+---------------------

Comment (by Chris Johns):

 Replying to [comment:9 Sebastian Huber]:
 > I think we should copy everything we need to a place we can control.
 URLs may get out of date and web servers may disappear.

 For a release this is what happens. The directory for 4.11.1 is:

 https://ftp.rtems.org/pub/rtems/releases/4.11/4.11.1/sources/

 and this is all the source for that release.

 I am not sure I follow the context of "copy everything". In terms of a
 time line the only points that matter are the release branch heads for the
 active and previous branch and master. I do not see any value in a single
 collection point for any and every patch the RSB references over time.

 Attempting to make sure all commits in the RSB are functional does not
 make sense. Hosts change and this effects the RSB so there are 2 dependent
 variables in play.

 > GCC snapshots seem to be only available for six months or so.

 Yes as we have discovered. I am fine with an FTP area on the ftp.rtems.org
 being set up for special cases if we have a need and gcc fills this role.
 If a release references a GCC snapshot when the release will contain a
 copy. The downside of this is a clutter of files that are of no value
 sitting around.

 > In case we copy everything into one directory on the patch consumer
 side, e.g. RSB, release directory, then we should not use subdirectories
 to make a patch unique on the patch provider side, e.g. RTEMS tools.

 Yes, and I am for us not using rtems-tools for patches any more.

--
Ticket URL: <http://devel.rtems.org/ticket/2949#comment:11>
RTEMS Project <http://www.rtems.org/>
RTEMS Project