Re: git is live

Eli Zaretskii
2013-11-14T17:21:51Z

> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:55:04 -0800
> From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
> Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>,
> Peter Bergner <bergner@vnet.ibm.com>, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>,
> Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>,
> Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom@linux.ibm.com>
>
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> >>
> >> 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.