From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9954 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2011 15:37:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 9702 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Oct 2011 15:37:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_BT,TW_DB X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:37:10 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1REjor-0001Q1-7r from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 08:37:09 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk ([172.16.63.104]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:37:07 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.74) (envelope-from ) id 1REjoo-0002zt-G8; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:37:06 +0000 Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:38:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Joel Brobecker cc: Phil Muldoon , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GIT and CVS In-Reply-To: <20111014051011.GD18867@adacore.com> Message-ID: References: <20111014051011.GD18867@adacore.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: 2011-10/txt/msg00135.txt.bz2 On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Joel Brobecker wrote: > IMO: discussions about which system is better are almost useless. > Nothing will happen until we have a plan. Discussions about what > the problems are are more useful, as someone motivated might be able > to craft a plan that can be accepted and then implemented. Indeed, we need a plan that deals with all the different bits of infrastructure and documentation needing updating. I support a move to a DVCS, probably git, keeping ChangeLogs as-is, keeping binutils and GDB together but not the other pieces not listed in (a) and (b) in , with the new repository having copies of the required shared toplevel files but not being the master for them (that being a separate repository if there is a single master at all), with the gdbtk bits preferably but not necessarily going in a separate repository or branch. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com