Breaking master [Was: [PATCH] Chase Newlib sys/select.h changes]

[Gedare Bloom]

Nick,

We occasionally "break master" by updating newlib or gcc. This is
fine, but yes it deserves a shout-out.

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:40 AM, Nick Withers <nick.withers at anu.edu.au> wrote:
> Hullo again,
>
> On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 20:04 +1100, Nick Withers wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Attached is a patch for master similar to that I posted to the Newlib
>> mailing list in https://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2015/msg00888.html *
>> .
>>
>> It chases Newlib changes to sys/types.h / sys/select.h and allows us
>> to use Newlib's sys/select.h directly rather than rolling our own.
>
> This patch would break building master with pre-08184b3 Newlib.
>
> Is this a problem? Should it be?
>
>
> How would folk feel about declaring that the master branch, like
> FreeBSD -CURRENT [1], is "unstable" and subject to changes like this
> that require the end-user to be on their game?
>
> Could we then just have an UPDATING-equivalent and/or mailing list post
> for changes like this that says "hey, you need to recompile your
> tools"?
>
> ...Or should we invest the time and effort to ensure that maintain
> backwards-compatibility whereever possible across all branches?
>
>
> I suppose there'd probably need to be releases more regularly to avoid
> people being somewhat-forced onto master. Other thoughts?
>
>
> [1] https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/current-stable.html
> --
> Nick "definitely not trying desperately to avoid having to touch autotools" Withers
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at rtems.org
> http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel