GSOC: Adding all generated changes in patch to RSB?

[Joel Sherrill]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 8:07 AM Matthew Joyce <mfjoyce2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Mentors,
>
> I've implemented my new functions locally in Newlib, created basic
> tests in RTEMS, now I want to add the patches to the RSB to test them.
>
> I think I understand that once I submit these patches to newlib, they
> should only include the added lines of source code...not any changes
> generated through the build process.

+1

> However, when I make a patch to add to RSB and test, I need to include
> everything, right? There are probably about 100 modified files from
> the reconf / build. Should I:
> 1) "git add --all" to add the whole load of new files and changes
> 2) make the commit
> 3) git format patch

Yes -- the RSB patch must include the generated files. But this patch set
and RSB modifications are only for your use. Before RTEMS.org RSB is
updated, the patch must be in the upstream newlib and we will just bump
the newlib hash. That's why I suggested just building newlib (j-newlib, make,
make install, etc) locally without the RSB and testing that way.

With that said, there are a couple of things to do here:

+ Do NOT put generated files in your main patch. Make them a separate
patch in the set so they are easy to ignore.

+ Reverse the generated changes to anything that shouldn't change based
on what you touched. These are just due to autoconf version difference. In your
case, I think this means you only need signal/Makefile.in. The rest are
unneeded.

+ Only submit the patches with manual changes for review. Submit to devel@
and when it passes review, it goes to newlib.

When the work is merged into newlib, you can update the RSB newlib hash
and submit your tests to RTEMS. You will have to track the status of
outstanding work and continue on to the next thing while the review process
moves along.

FWIW Eshan ended up tracking patches for a few months after last year's
GSoC ended before we cleared his queue up.

--joel

>
> Just want to make sure I'm understanding this point...
>
> Thank you!
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Matt