From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1670 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2013 18:25:57 -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 1652 invoked by uid 89); 14 Nov 2013 18:25:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,RDNS_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-we0-f178.google.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-we0-f178.google.com) (74.125.82.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:25:55 +0000 Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id u57so1994230wes.9 for ; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:25:46 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.78.99 with SMTP id a3mr3113547wjx.93.1384453546070; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:25:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.217.119.193 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:25:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131114181447.GI12772@adacore.com> References: <877gd5iyaz.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1382709091.5918.9.camel@otta> <5284ACD1.8090609@arm.com> <20131114111140.GF12772@adacore.com> <83r4ajym3z.fsf@gnu.org> <20131114181447.GI12772@adacore.com> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:25:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: git is live From: Andrew Pinski To: Joel Brobecker Cc: "H.J. Lu" , Ian Lance Taylor , Eli Zaretskii , Richard Earnshaw , Peter Bergner , Tom Tromey , gdb , Binutils , Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00072.txt.bz2 On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> I'd like to see vendor branches on sourceware. > > Can you explain why this would be a good thing for the project? Ian described it the best of why GCC allows it: > 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. I think the same is true of gdb and binutils to some extend. And yes most of the vendors have patches on top of the base versions of gdb, binutils and gcc. Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > -- > Joel