From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19675 invoked by alias); 1 Jan 2010 14:18:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 19656 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Jan 2010 14:18:46 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FH_DATE_PAST_20XX X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:18:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A01E2BABF3; Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:18:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id wZRDAVOU+tml; Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 654602BABE8; Fri, 1 Jan 2010 09:18:39 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id AA4AEF5937; Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:18:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2010 14:18:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: time to be serious about dropping CVS Message-ID: <20100101141806.GP548@adacore.com> References: <20100101080137.GP2788@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-01/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 Thanks for the suggestions! > Do not try to plan a transition for the whole src repository. Try to plan > one for GDB and Binutils together at most [*], on the basis that other > projects such as Cygwin and Newlib should choose their own version control > systems in their own way and at such times as are convenient to them. I would be happy with such an approach - in fact, I think that makes the task easier too, since we'd have fewer groups to coordinate. > My suggestion is to handle the shared toplevel files in a DVCS-pure way - > no one master repository, changes committed to any repository get merged > to the others automatically. I think GCC has something more or less similar where they have a semi- automated merge mechanism? That would perfectly work for me. -- Joel