From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27670 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2002 14:01:31 -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 27613 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2002 14:01:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 14:01:26 -0000 Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 338) id 21BF7F2D69; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:01:26 -0500 (EST) To: dan@dberlin.org, lord@emf.net Subject: Re: gcc development schedule [Re: sharing libcpp between GDB and GCC] Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <20020327140126.21BF7F2D69@nile.gnat.com> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:01:00 -0000 From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00277.txt.bz2 <<(and I suspect that there are, in fact, several more than two); a better approach would be to collect those automated testing infrastructures under a common (automated) interface and make them available to lots of branches (even branches not maintained by people with write access to the main repository). >> In the case of GNAT, our primary test suite is composed almost entirely of proprietary code from customers, and cannot be made available. I would be surprised if that is not the case in other situations.