From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12492 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2009 19:19:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 12481 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jun 2009 19:19:54 -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; Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:19:49 +0000 Received: (qmail 3097 invoked from network); 20 Jun 2009 19:19:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 Jun 2009 19:19:47 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MI66M-0006OK-3v for gdb@sourceware.org; Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:19:46 +0000 Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:19:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: What is keeping GDB in CVS ? In-Reply-To: <20090620184837.GA866@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> <20090620184837.GA866@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/msg00206.txt.bz2 On Sat, 20 Jun 2009, Christopher Faylor wrote: > You're reading more into what I wrote than I intended. I wasn't > proposing any trickery. I'm just saying that, IMO, if a group of files > is shared between projects the shared group of files should be stored in > their own repository. > > I haven't used git so maybe it adds extra wrinkles but I can't see how > it would be THAT hard to accommodate keeping things in separate > directories. You can either use symlinks, or, 'source' lines in shell > scripts and 'include' lines in Makefiles. It seems quite clear to me that all these files should be automatically tagged when the projects using them are tagged and branched when those projects are branched and the tagged or branched versions should be checked out automatically when the tag or branch is checked out. You can of course invent systems for tagging or branching in multiple repositories, but if you require people to do something that's not the normal way of using whatever version control system is used then trouble will inevitably result (cf. the present issues with not being able to use "cvs update -d" as normal in the present arrangements). As I said in the binutils discussion, version control systems should make common tasks easy and mistakes in common tasks difficult. (This suggests allowing commits to the shared files anywhere and automatically merging everywhere else behind the scenes as the friendliest arrangement even if harder to implement.) -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com