From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15078 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2003 17:57:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15069 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2003 17:57:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2003 17:57:27 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1JHvRK14540 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:57:27 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1JHvRa10407; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:57:27 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-1.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.1]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h1JHvQO22683; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:57:26 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1JHvKp08840; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:57:20 -0700 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:57:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1030219175720.ZM8839@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: David Carlton "Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process" (Feb 19, 9:33am) References: <20030217180709.GA19866@nevyn.them.org> <20030218042847.50F2E3CE5@localhost.redhat.com> <20030218023553.2BBB73D02@localhost.redhat.com> <15953.20132.193102.752916@localhost.redhat.com> <20030219014904.GA11446@nevyn.them.org> <3E539ABA.4050203@redhat.com> To: David Carlton Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00363.txt.bz2 On Feb 19, 9:33am, David Carlton wrote: > On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:54:50 -0500, Andrew Cagney said: > > > One thing GCC(4) and GDB are now is encouraging exprementation on > > branches development to always occure on branches cut from the the > > relevant repository. > > Would Red Hat be happy hosting significant branches for other > companies? I assume you're referring to the sources.redhat.com repository, right? I think the answer is "yes", so long as the branch in question is intended to (eventually) further mainline gdb development. If the branch is just some custom bit of work that is likely to never make it to the mainline, probably not. > Would those other companies be happy depending on Red > Hat's CVS servers? I doubt it. But... For the contract work that Red Hat itself does, Red Hat does not depend solely on the external (sources.redhat.com) respository. Red Hat has an internal repository that it uses for customer work. From time to time, the public repository is merged to Red Hat's internal repository. Also, from time to time, work that was performed for a customer which couldn't immediately go into the public repository is pushed out to the public. > (Maybe a reasonable answer here is "yes, but money > should change hands".) It might be nice if GDB were using a source > code management tool that didn't depend on having a single repository, > making it easier for people to maintain public branches elsewhere but > to still sync them with an official branch. Hmm. Something to think about. Kevin