From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22855 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2014 06:02:59 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 22828 invoked by uid 89); 6 Apr 2014 06:02:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 06 Apr 2014 06:02:56 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s3662r3A024889 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 6 Apr 2014 02:02:53 -0400 Received: from psique (ovpn-113-33.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.33]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s3662n2h015329 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sun, 6 Apr 2014 02:02:51 -0400 From: Sergio Durigan Junior To: Edjunior Barbosa Machado Cc: GDB , Binutils , Peter Bergner , Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho Subject: Re: Vendor branches on sourceware.org's binutils-gdb repo References: <53406399.9050303@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-URL: http://www.redhat.com Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 06:02:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <53406399.9050303@linux.vnet.ibm.com> (Edjunior Barbosa Machado's message of "Sat, 05 Apr 2014 17:12:09 -0300") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 On Saturday, April 05 2014, Edjunior Barbosa Machado wrote: > Hi all, Hey :-). > We already maintain community vendor branches for glibc (on > sourceware.org) and gcc (on gnu.org), and we'd like to do the same for > binutils-gdb. The idea is to create separate namespaces, i.e. > ibm/gdb/7.7 and ibm/binutils/2.24. Those branches will only store > patches under GPL and with a proper copyright assignment. > > Any comments? Objections? Hm, just a comment, but nothing major or blocker. I understand the need for vendor branches, but I also think that we should make more use of git's distributed model. For example, why can't Company X (I am not criticizing anyone particularly, really) create and maintain its own git repository, with all the necessary branches there? Wouldn't that be better than (a) "polluting" sourceware's repository and (b) putting an extra pressure on sourceware's infra? I may be missing some detail here, and if that is the case then I am sorry for creating unecessary noise, but at first glance I couldn't come up with a decent answer for my question above. P.S.: Before I forget, this comment/question really applies to everyone who is still using sourceware as their "personal" git repo. P.S. 2: It is also worth mentioning that my intention is *not* to make people create GitHub accounts and start doing things there. Aside from the fact that GitHub uses non-free software to run its services (and also serves non-free Javascript), IMHO it also encourages people to stay within its "social network" walls and makes it a little harder to get advantage from git's distributed protocol. -- Sergio