Re: What is keeping GDB in CVS ?

["Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>]

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Tom Tromey wrote:

> One idea I had is to have an "infrastructure" repository holding
> top-level configure, plus libiberty and include.  Then, gcc, src,
> cgen, cygwin, etc would simply merge from this repository.  And, we'd
> have a rule: no local changes.

That's no local changes to these files on the development mainline of all 
but the one repository.  Release branches still need to be able to have 
changes to them.

If the separate repositories solution is chosen, it is not necessary for 
all projects to convert at once, or even to convert to the same system; 
having set up the infrastructure arrangements (and I think GCC as master 
for those files would work just as well as a separate repository) 
individual projects could move away from CVS (disallowing HEAD commits on 
their parts of the CVS repository) when convenient to them.  For example, 
if we still wish to integrate the older binutils and GDB history when 
converting those projects, other projects would not need to wait for that 
history to be made available.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com