Re: A Proposal to Move to Git

Joseph S. Myers
2013-08-31T16:58:26Z

On Fri, 30 Aug 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:

> > Rather, changing shared files now needs three repositories rather than two
> > to change. If we can get agreement on GCC as the master, this could be
> > automated as it is for libiberty (check into GCC and let the automatic
> > process merge to the others).
>
> Or two repos rather than one and agreement whether src-CVS or
> the new git is the master; some files are not in GCC.

Well, such agreement for those files not in GCC (we already have GCC as
master for libiberty and libdecnumber, for example) - unless and until we
move the non-shared parts of include/ to a separate directory, which I
think would be better. (See
<https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2013-08/msg00207.html> for my comments
on the division of include/, with an unresolved question about whether
anything not shared with GCC is used by anything outside of binutils+gdb.)

> For other projects not to be severely inconvenienced (i.e. to
> actually leave them free to choose) we assume here that the src
> CVS repo remains updated regarding shared files. I did not take
> that for granted; it seemed that shared directories would remain
> read-only, but I guess that wasn't actually intended.

I consider it necessary that shared files get updated in all the
repositories between which they are shared (with the possibility of
removing files when no longer needed by anything in a particular
repository).

--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com