Re: What is keeping GDB in CVS ?

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>]

On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 07:29:18PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>So maybe they shouldn't be *shared*.  There could be just one copy.  I
>>think everyone knows that you'll have problems as soon as you start
>>duplicating data.  This is no exception.
>>
>>I doubt that the gcc project would think it was a good idea but we
>>could just break libiberty and the top-level configury into a separate
>>repository too.  Then when you make a change to a file, everyone gets
>>the change and people will squawk immediately when you make a change to
>>one of these files for gcc which happens to break a binutils build.
>
>That worked for the old GNU hardlinks-to-,v-files approach.  I don't
>think it's effectively supported by any version control system more
>modern than CVS.

You're reading more into what I wrote than I intended.  I wasn't
proposing any trickery.  I'm just saying that, IMO, if a group of files
is shared between projects the shared group of files should be stored in
their own repository.

I haven't used git so maybe it adds extra wrinkles but I can't see how
it would be THAT hard to accommodate keeping things in separate
directories.  You can either use symlinks, or, 'source' lines in shell
scripts and 'include' lines in Makefiles.

I don't buy the complaining that this would cause terrible consequences
for someone's established workflow.  We're talking about programmers
here.  If they can't adapt to a change like this then it's hard to see
how they could be contributing much to any of these projects.

cgf