From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18723 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2011 23:52:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 18460 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2011 23:52:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:52:37 +0000 Received: (qmail 31667 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2011 23:52:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 29 Mar 2011 23:52:36 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Q4iiA-0002HI-VC; Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:52:34 +0000 Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 23:52:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" cc: DJ Delorie , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sourceware.org, gdb@sourceware.org, newlib@sourceware.org Subject: Re: On the toplevel configure and build system In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <201103292228.p2TMSAPB006048@greed.delorie.com> 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: 2011-03/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Perhaps if we do move to git for all the /src stuff, we can have a It is very strongly in my principle 6 that there should be no "we" moving "for all the /src stuff" - that it should be made possible for each project (a) through (i) to make its own decisions about version control systems and repository hosting, and to have its own set of people with write access, because the interdependencies associated with the shared repository are one of the greatest flaws in the present system. I believe it is already possible for cgen and rda to move our of src on their own because they appear to have no dependence on the toplevel infrastructure. (Other components would complicate merge issues if they move without the toplevel repository (a) being created first.) > /toplevel git repository with different branches suitable for each of > your tastes of such policy. I am hoping that the toplevel repository, (a) in my list, should not have branches at all. All branching and tagging should take place in repositories for individual projects (which could also choose when to merge changes from the toplevel repository if merges at a particular time are considered risky in the light of planned branches or releases). -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com