Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Document the commit process around bootstrapping #7600

Closed
vicuna opened this issue Jul 25, 2017 · 5 comments
Closed

Document the commit process around bootstrapping #7600

vicuna opened this issue Jul 25, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@vicuna
Copy link

vicuna commented Jul 25, 2017

Original bug ID: 7600
Reporter: @gasche
Status: acknowledged (set by @xavierleroy on 2017-09-30T09:06:22Z)
Resolution: open
Priority: low
Severity: text
Version: 4.06.0 +dev/beta1/beta2/rc1
Target version: later
Category: documentation
Related to: #7599

Bug description

There is documentation about the bootstrap process in two places:

  • in INSTALL.adoc#bootstrap, there are accessible explanations on what a bootstrap from a working compiler does
  • in Makefile, the "hard bootstrap how-to" explains how to do bootstrap across changes that break stuff (and thus require a bootstrap)

To my knowledge there is no public description of when to bootstrap, and of the commit process around a bootstrap. (I believe both changed in the last couple years, with the primitive stuff requiring less bootstraps and the consensus to separate bootstrap commits from the rest.)

Additional information

This is related to #7599 (documentation for magic number updates) given that documenting the commit process around magic numbers requires being able to explain the bootstrap part.

@vicuna
Copy link
Author

vicuna commented Sep 30, 2017

Comment author: @xavierleroy

Any volunteers?

@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented May 7, 2020

This issue has been open one year with no activity. Consequently, it is being marked with the "stale" label. What this means is that the issue will be automatically closed in 30 days unless more comments are added or the "stale" label is removed. Comments that provide new information on the issue are especially welcome: is it still reproducible? did it appear in other contexts? how critical is it? etc.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the Stale label May 7, 2020
@dbuenzli
Copy link
Contributor

dbuenzli commented May 7, 2020

There is now a good BOOTSTRAP.adoc document for these things in the source tree.

Sorry to hijack the autoclose but people searching the issue tracker may fall on this. I think this issue can be closed.

Meta note. I find a little bit sad that the OCaml project decided to declare bug bankruptcy by going to such extremes as labelling one year old bug as stale while it could have gradually have closed say 20-30 bugs per months starting by the oldest ones that were filed 18 years ago.

@xavierleroy
Copy link
Contributor

it could have gradually have closed say 20-30 bugs per months starting by the oldest ones that were filed 18 years ago.

Do you think we are so stupid that we didn't think of that?

All the old bugs were "touched" on March 19, 2019, when they were automatically migrated to Github issues. Hence, from the bot's viewpoint, these migrated issues are one year old.

@dbuenzli
Copy link
Contributor

dbuenzli commented May 8, 2020

Do you think we are so stupid that we didn't think of that?

No, I thought you would have programmed a bot less stupid than that. As far as I can see the original date of the report was migrated correctly. All these github APIs exist for something.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants