Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [ISSUE] (Round 3), GCC, pqm generalization

[Tom Lord]

    > From: address@hidden (James Blackwell)

    > >From Tom Lord (address@hidden)
    > > Let's call that general form of rule, the kind that defines a set of
    > > "implied branches", a "derived branch" (or "derived version" when the
    > > branch/version distinction matters).

    > Just to make sure I'm clear here, an "implied branch" is a set of
    > actual branches that pass a certain collection of tests? 

No, not actual branches.   

Rather, any family of (essentially interchangable) branches which are
created by a rule.

They don't have to actually exist and if they do exist there doesn't
have to be just one unique instance of each.  The rule is the thing.
The rule tells you how to automatically make an equivalent copy of a
derived branch when you need it.


    > > 1) PQM should be generalized to permit a wide range of rules
    > >    to be dynamically defined.   A simple black-box hook isn't
    > >    right.   PQM needs a standardized language for rules.

    > tla list-versions --with-tests=builds386, 

    > ?

?  No.

More like a little scripting language thing.

     if (foobar_tests_pass_for (revision)
         && log_contains_keyword (revision, "release-candidate")
         && commiter_is_authorized (revision))

       tla tag [in release-candidate branch];

or any of gazillions of variations.

-t