This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: git is live
- From: Fred Cooke <fred dot cooke at gmail dot com>
- To: Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, GDB Development <gdb at sourceware dot org>, Binutils Development <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at linux dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:09:42 +0200
- Subject: Re: git is live
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <877gd5iyaz dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <1382709091 dot 5918 dot 9 dot camel at otta>
What drives the desire for that, though? With git you can publish your
own branches as you see fit, and link them to who ever is relevant.
Adding a lot of branches to the central repository is just a form of
clutter, even if it is otherwise harmless. There's no real reason to,
unlike with CVS/SVN where that was the ONLY way. With Git it makes
absolute sense to keep these separate but share history, on some other
host. This way the official repository contains just that, official
code, and branches, ie, a "trunk" of some sort, and release/bug fix
branches, and tags thereof. Nothing more. Of course, my opinion is
worth what you paid for it, and isn't important. :-)
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Peter Bergner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 01:01 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> The URLs:
> Ok, it's probably getting old, but I'll add my thanks
> for switching us over. Now to my question...
> >From a policy standpoint, are we going to allow vendor branches
> in the git repo like glibc does? I'm hoping the answer is yes. :)
> We didn't allow it before due to it seems CVS issues, but with git,
> it should now be easy.