From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5480 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2005 10:57:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5472 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Oct 2005 10:57:05 -0000 Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:57:05 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-251-213.inter.net.il [84.228.251.213]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CVG69541 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:56:57 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:57:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Nick Roberts CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <17250.47790.110383.508587@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> (message from Nick Roberts on Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:56:30 +1300) Subject: Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20051028222253.GX1155@adacore.com> <200510282256.j9SMu2pQ002862@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20051028231430.GA9909@nevyn.them.org> <200510282324.j9SNOHql024377@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <17250.47790.110383.508587@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> X-SW-Source: 2005-10/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 > From: Nick Roberts > Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:56:30 +1300 > Cc: drow@false.org, brobecker@adacore.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com > > We can assume that GCC developers have made a sound technical decision. Yes, we can assume that. But no one said that there's only one sound technical decision. I'm sure there were downsides to that decision even in the context of the GCC project (as opposed to a general decision that _all_ GNU projects should adopt svn). I'm sure that the decision they made was influenced, at least to some degree, by the persons who were involved in making the decision, and by their social dynamics. These aspects are different in the GDB case, and, of course, GDB is a different type of project with different (albeit similar) development and maintenance patterns and different goals. It is quite possible that the same set of considerations as those that were discussed by the GCC team will, in our case, lead to different conclusions and to different decisions, that are no less sound and technical. > We should focus on how GDB development differs from that of GCC and > whether that difference impacts on the choice of version control > used. Yes, 100% agreement here. But we could also decide not to do this right now, and instead concentrate on development. That would be a sound technical decision as well. Btw, where's the thread (or threads) in which GCC people discussed this issue?