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: Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>, binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 05:39:33 -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> <20160627191456 dot GC4091 at vapier dot lan> <9d167a30-4f63-c11a-27ac-2c31fd4facf7 at vnet dot ibm dot com> <20160628035211 dot GA4685 at vapier dot lan>
> > I can't find the post, but we did come to a consensus that vendor
> > and personal branches should come under the .../users/<vendor|user>/
> > directory.
> sounds good. i'll see about moving Gentoo's binutils & my gdb changes up.
> > Currently, IBM and ARM have vendor branches and there are quite a
> > few personal branches too:
> i saw, but it wasn't clear to me whether it was one-off or "sanctioned".
It seems like no one feel they have enough authority to sanction
those branches. The only stakeholders I can think of now are
the people on overseers, since those branches are taking a (tiny)
amount of extra disk and network bandwidth.