From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12027 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2005 00:37:02 -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 11969 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2005 00:36:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 2005 00:36:53 -0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j2M0arrY024600 for ; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:36:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay2.apple.com (relay2.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.17) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:36:52 -0800 Received: from [17.112.104.193] ([17.112.104.193]) by relay2.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j2M0apNA008049; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:36:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <423F68A3.3090703@apple.com> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:37:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Product branches in the GDB repository? References: <20050322002034.GA19385@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20050322002034.GA19385@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00198.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >We're already pretty flexible about creating branches for development. Does >anyone have an object to branches for non-FSF releases? I think it's a >logical extension of current practice. > >CodeSourcery does regular releases of an ARM toolchain, and we're going to >have a bunch of as yet unsubmitted GDB patches in our next release. Nothing >deliberately unsubmitted, of course, but things which need additional >polishing or review or input before they're ready for HEAD. I would prefer >to maintain them in the main repository, simply because it's easier with CVS. >And that way the patches are easily available for any curious GDB >developers. > >FWIW, we already do this for both gcc and binutils. > > Yes, Apple has been doing it with GCC on a pretty large scale, and it doesn't seem as though it's been troublesome for anyone. So I'm OK with doing the same for GDB; as with the GCC branches, there should be documentation about the branch and its policies both on web page and in a branch-only file. (Does that mean Apple GDB should get a branch here too? Interesting question...) Stan