From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6257 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2006 21:20:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 6249 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Feb 2006 21:20:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:20:24 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1F6DmX-0007hH-OF; Mon, 06 Feb 2006 16:20:21 -0500 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 21:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: PAUL GILLIAM Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: using rsync to create local repository Message-ID: <20060206212021.GA29510@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: PAUL GILLIAM , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <1138301788.1423.54.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060126190733.GA13020@nevyn.them.org> <1138308820.1423.59.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060126205524.GA17357@nevyn.them.org> <1138318142.1423.70.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060201234306.GD14187@nevyn.them.org> <1139007553.1423.133.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1139007553.1423.133.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00135.txt.bz2 On Fri, Feb 03, 2006 at 02:59:13PM -0800, PAUL GILLIAM wrote: > rsync -az --delete --exclude '#cvs.*' --exclude 'CVSROOT/config' \ > --exclude \ 'CVSROOT/history' --exclude 'CVSROOT/updatelog' \ > rsync://sources.redhat.com/gdb-cvs gdb-cvs > > I cribbed these from Janis Johnson as used for GCC. Do we need these > same excludes? Yes. Except, you've now switched back to gdb-cvs, and that's not the right repository. > I have also attached a patch to MAINTAINERS in light of the following > e-mail exchange: Do we want a maintainer for the web pages right now? A serious question. With the recent changes to MAINTAINERS, if there is one, then that individual needs to review all web page patches, and be interested in taking general care of the web pages. If there isn't one, any global maintainer can make changes to the web pages. I have the feeling that distributing the responsibility, for this particular area, would be a better choice. Maybe it wouldn't. I'm open to other opinions. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery