This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: git is live
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: rearnsha at arm dot com, iant at google dot com, bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com, tromey at redhat dot com, gdb at sourceware dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org, tuliom at linux dot ibm dot com
- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 18:38:40 +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> <CAKOQZ8xh2L_D-gdX2wG7TT0c-r6q4=QXqqFHiUq2WPO-3b3t-Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <5284ACD1 dot 8090609 at arm dot com> <20131114111140 dot GF12772 at adacore dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:11:40 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <email@example.com>
> Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Peter Bergner <email@example.com>, Tom Tromey <firstname.lastname@example.org>, GDB Development <email@example.com>, Binutils Development <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <email@example.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?