From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14560 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2013 16:39:10 -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 14530 invoked by uid 89); 14 Nov 2013 16:39:08 -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 16:39:05 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MW900000I8K8L00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:38:56 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MW9000X3I8W7H20@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:38:56 +0200 (IST) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:39:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: git is live In-reply-to: <20131114111140.GF12772@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: rearnsha@arm.com, iant@google.com, bergner@vnet.ibm.com, tromey@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org, tuliom@linux.ibm.com Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83r4ajym3z.fsf@gnu.org> References: <877gd5iyaz.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1382709091.5918.9.camel@otta> <5284ACD1.8090609@arm.com> <20131114111140.GF12772@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:11:40 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: Ian Lance Taylor , Peter Bergner , Tom Tromey , GDB Development , Binutils Development , Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho > > > > GCC has always allowed vendor branches. I don't see any reason that > > > binutils/gdb should prohibit them. Obviously all the code has to be > > > under the GPL or some other explicitly permitted license. > > > > I believe the GCC policy is that the code must also be assigned to the > > FSF, just as it would be for trunk. > > Outside of the policy, I am starting to rethink the policy of > allowing vendor branches. For centralized version control systems > such as SVN, it makes sense, because there is no other choice. > > 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?