Re: git is live

Eli Zaretskii
2013-11-14T16:39:10Z

> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:11:40 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>, Peter Bergner <bergner@vnet.ibm.com>, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, GDB Development <gdb@sourceware.org>, Binutils Development <binutils@sourceware.org>, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom@linux.ibm.com>
>
> > > GCC has always allowed vendor branches. I don't see any reason that
> > > binutils/gdb should prohibit them. Obviously all the code has to be
> > > under the GPL or some other explicitly permitted license.
> >
> > I believe the GCC policy is that the code must also be assigned to the
> > FSF, just as it would be for trunk.
>
> Outside of the policy, I am starting to rethink the policy of
> allowing vendor branches. For centralized version control systems
> such as SVN, it makes sense, because there is no other choice.
>
> But for decentralized systems such as git, I think vendor branches
> could be just as easily hosted elsewhere. With git, it's really easy
> for anyone to host it somewhere, and publish its location. It's also
> equally easy for anyone interested in the work to add that location
> a remote, and fetch from it.

Obviously, this discussion only has sense if the branch is hosted by
sourceware. Otherwise, what could we do to prevent J. R. Hacker from
publishing a branch from her own machine?