From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32175 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2009 19:29:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 32165 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jun 2009 19:29:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:29:21 +0000 Received: (qmail 17039 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2009 19:29:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 19 Jun 2009 19:29:20 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MHjm2-0005tT-RV for gdb@sourceware.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:29:18 +0000 Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:29:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: What is keeping GDB in CVS ? In-Reply-To: <20090619192236.GA10670@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Message-ID: References: <87r5xgqk0k.wl%naesten@gmail.com> <20090619162308.GA13968@caradoc.them.org> <20090619162801.GA14773@caradoc.them.org> <20090619163753.GA9700@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090619192236.GA10670@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00204.txt.bz2 On Fri, 19 Jun 2009, Christopher Faylor wrote: > So maybe they shouldn't be *shared*. There could be just one copy. I > think everyone knows that you'll have problems as soon as you start > duplicating data. This is no exception. > > I doubt that the gcc project would think it was a good idea but we could > just break libiberty and the top-level configury into a separate > repository too. Then when you make a change to a file, everyone gets > the change and people will squawk immediately when you make a change to > one of these files for gcc which happens to break a binutils build. That worked for the old GNU hardlinks-to-,v-files approach. I don't think it's effectively supported by any version control system more modern than CVS. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com