From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26491 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2003 18:56:34 -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 26462 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2003 18:56:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2003 18:56:32 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52ADF2E96; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:01:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E53D47A.30809@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:56:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030217 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kevin Buettner Cc: David Carlton , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process References: <20030217180709.GA19866@nevyn.them.org> <20030218042847.50F2E3CE5@localhost.redhat.com> <20030218023553.2BBB73D02@localhost.redhat.com> <15953.20132.193102.752916@localhost.redhat.com> <20030219014904.GA11446@nevyn.them.org> <3E539ABA.4050203@redhat.com> <1030219175720.ZM8839@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00367.txt.bz2 > On Feb 19, 9:33am, David Carlton wrote: > > >> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:54:50 -0500, Andrew Cagney said: >> > >> > One thing GCC(4) and GDB are now is encouraging exprementation on >> > branches development to always occure on branches cut from the the >> > relevant repository. > >> >> Would Red Hat be happy hosting significant branches for other >> companies? FYI, it isn't a Red Hat decision. > I assume you're referring to the sources.redhat.com repository, right? > > I think the answer is "yes", so long as the branch in question is > intended to (eventually) further mainline gdb development. If the > branch is just some custom bit of work that is likely to never make > it to the mainline, probably not. And that decision is up to this group. >> Would those other companies be happy depending on Red >> Hat's CVS servers? Should money making corporate types be willing to bet the crown jewls on those same resources (sware, subversion, sourceforge)? Interesting question. Red Hat makes sourceware available as a public service. It funds it rather than owns it. The machine is adminstered by a group of overseers (chrisf and jasonm are two). Andrew