This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Vendor branches on sourceware.org's binutils-gdb repo
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- Cc: Mark Kettenis <mark dot kettenis at xs4all dot nl>, aaro dot koskinen at iki dot fi, sergiodj at redhat dot com, emachado at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com, gdb at sourceware dot org, binutils at sourceware dot org, bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com, tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
- Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 08:46:19 -0700
- Subject: Re: Vendor branches on sourceware.org's binutils-gdb repo
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53406399 dot 9050303 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <m3vbunyoza dot fsf at redhat dot com> <20140406191404 dot GC7558 at drone dot musicnaut dot iki dot fi> <20140407035120 dot GA4186 at adacore dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1404071623060 dot 23408 at wotan dot suse dot de> <201404071452 dot s37EqLB9024528 at glazunov dot sibelius dot xs4all dot nl> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1404071701320 dot 23408 at wotan dot suse dot de>
> It's not the infrastructure. It's policies. Some companies have a policy
> of not publishing any code outside except through a heavy process, which
> might include a white-list of where it may be published/hosted.
> sourceware.org is on that white-list already. It may be very painful to
> extend that white-list.
Companies that do have such a white list are an acceptable exception,
IMO, and I would be OK with having their branches in our sourceware.org