From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21930 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2013 17:21:51 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 21901 invoked by uid 89); 14 Nov 2013 17:21:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RDNS_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mtaout20.012.net.il Received: from Unknown (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:20:25 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MW900000J95DZ00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:20:16 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MW9000VFK5QFN20@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 19:20:15 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 17:21:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: git is live In-reply-to: To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, rearnsha@arm.com, bergner@vnet.ibm.com, tromey@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org, tuliom@linux.ibm.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83ob5mzyrk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <877gd5iyaz.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1382709091.5918.9.camel@otta> <5284ACD1.8090609@arm.com> <20131114111140.GF12772@adacore.com> <83r4ajym3z.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00069.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:55:04 -0800 > From: Ian Lance Taylor > Cc: Joel Brobecker , Richard Earnshaw , > Peter Bergner , Tom Tromey , gdb , > Binutils , > Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> From: Joel Brobecker > >> > >> But for decentralized systems such as git, I think vendor branches > >> could be just as easily hosted elsewhere. With git, it's really easy > >> for anyone to host it somewhere, and publish its location. It's also > >> equally easy for anyone interested in the work to add that location > >> a remote, and fetch from it. > > > > Obviously, this discussion only has sense if the branch is hosted by > > sourceware. Otherwise, what could we do to prevent J. R. Hacker from > > publishing a branch from her own machine? > > Nothing. But I don't see why that matters. I was replying to Joel, who said (see above): "for decentralized systems such as git, I think vendor branches could be just as easily hosted elsewhere. With git, it's really easy for anyone to host it somewhere, and publish its location." > I'm mildly in favor of permitting vendor branches on gcc.gnu.org for a > different reason: it encourages vendors with GCC extensions to make > those extensions readily available to everybody. If we require > vendors to handle their own hosting, we will inevitably have some who > simply decide not to bother. That's the crux of the issue. Mentioning private hosting just steers the discussion away from that issue, which was my point.