From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3854 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2005 02:47:42 -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 3844 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Oct 2005 02:47:37 -0000 Received: from eastrmmtao05.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao05.cox.net) (68.230.240.34) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:47:37 +0000 Received: from white ([68.9.65.164]) by eastrmmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20051030024732.EWKP28234.eastrmmtao05.cox.net@white>; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:47:32 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1EW3Dy-0003PW-00; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:47:10 -0400 Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:47:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Nick Roberts , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? Message-ID: <20051030024709.GA12884@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , Nick Roberts , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20051028222253.GX1155@adacore.com> <200510282256.j9SMu2pQ002862@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20051028231430.GA9909@nevyn.them.org> <200510282324.j9SNOHql024377@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <17250.47790.110383.508587@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-SW-Source: 2005-10/txt/msg00215.txt.bz2 On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 12:57:02PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Nick Roberts > > Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:56:30 +1300 > > Cc: drow@false.org, brobecker@adacore.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com > > > > We can assume that GCC developers have made a sound technical decision. > > Yes, we can assume that. But no one said that there's only one sound > technical decision. I'm sure there were downsides to that decision > even in the context of the GCC project (as opposed to a general > decision that _all_ GNU projects should adopt svn). I'm sure that the > decision they made was influenced, at least to some degree, by the > persons who were involved in making the decision, and by their social > dynamics. Definatly. For instance, look at the Linux kernel. Linus has already said "PS. Don't bother telling me about subversion." at http://lwn.net/Articles/130681/ Also, The Subversion Development Team wrote a letter to tell people to stop bothering Linus about subversion. http://subversion.tigris.org/subversion-linus.html I personally don't see a large difference between the Linux kernel development and the GCC developement stratagies. With that in mind, it's hard for me to understand why GCC *is* a good choice for subversion and Linux *is not*. If it was up to me, I'd rather see GDB switch to a distributed RCS. I usually have several tree's and it takes a long time to update them all by hitting the internet each time. Until we get a distributed RCS, subversion definatly seems like an improvement to CVS. I'd be happy to see the change. Bob Rossi