This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: TLS, 2015 edition


On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 05:28:35PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On 06 Apr 2015 15:47, Stan Shebs wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On 31 Mar 2015 11:33, Stan Shebs wrote:
> > > > The Google-local patch is a descendant of that code. (In theory Google
> > > > ought to have a git branch, but I only see ones for Roland?)
> > >
> > > if the Google maintainers of an internal glibc patchset (i'm assuming you're
> > > referring to the glibc in the GRTE) wanted to use the public glibc git for
> > > their work, i don't think we'd have a problem with that.  it'd most likely be
> > > more of an issue getting those people push access (assuming they don't already
> > > have it).  unfortunately, the server is running plain git which doesn't do
> > > per-branch ACLs like Gerrit supports.
> > 
> > I don't know that ACLs are critical - the obstacles to a public git
> > branch are mostly inertia, and the need for some import script
> > tinkering.
> 
> i mean it might be easier giving out access to known vendors (like Google) if we 
> could constrain them to the vendor branch namespace.  otherwise, since you get 
> full access to the git repo, we don't give out access freely.
> -mike

Main obstacle is still inertia. We could find somebody from google to
trust doing periodic sync of google branch. It would be same as syncing
fedora/gentoo ones.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]