Re: ct-ng -> git repos instead of single patches

[Allan Clark <allanc at chickenandporn dot com>]

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 19:12, Enrico Weigelt <weigelt@metux.de> wrote:
> * Allan Clark <allanc@chickenandporn.com> wrote:
>
>> I for one appreciate the idea, but would press against such -- it adds the
>> dependency that all users have GIT components (and the interpreter it needs
>> -- sure, most users have that, but...).
>
> Any crosstool-user who does not have git installed (or could trivially
> do it) ? ;-o

Most companies are firewalled, and if this became "required", then it
would chop out users who do not have this option.

Note: the most skilled users behind a firewall are just as hindered.

In addition, some companies have a "vetting" process, wherein
components are formally identified with their respective license(s)
and checked into SCM (Moto, I'm looking at you here).  GIT would be
unusable in such cases.  As much as you can show a "vetting of a
version", explain that to any three corporate lawyers.

You'd need to list the git version in your Kconfig so they're
available before hitting a foreign server.

> > how do you handle project not using git as their primary SCM ?
>
> Simply mirror their scm to a git repo first.

... thereby adding to the "cost" of using crossgcc -- there are
reasons that GIT is not used in every company around the globe;
consider that there might be a reason, but you're forcing people to
change tools where they just want to continue getting things done.

Again, I press against making this a core requirement, but if it works
in the optional case, no worries.

Allan

-- 
allanc@chickenandporn.com "éé" http://linkedin.com/in/goldfish
please, no proprietary attachments (http://tinyurl.com/cbgq)

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq