This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the libc-ports 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: [PATCH v2 1a/10] sysdeps/tile support

On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 01:16:42AM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
>On Sat, 3 Dec 2011, Chris Metcalf wrote:
>> On the other hand, maybe I am confused.  I was assuming that CVS was still
>> the primary vehicle for managing glibc, and the git repository was just
>No, CVS is just for accessing old history (some parts of which are rather 
>a mess in git and are much easier to follow in CVS - the heuristics used 
>to merge commits with per-file log messages didn't work that well for all 
>of the history) and linuxthreads/linuxthreads_db history (those were never 
>converted to git at all).
>Overseers, the welcome message Chris got had misleading references to CVS.  
>I don't know where the mapping from projects to services mentioned in that 
>message is, but could someone fix it so that it refers to git instead of 
>CVS for glibc?  A recent discussion on the GDB mailing list mentioned a 
>reference to GNATS which is long out-of-date for GDB (and glibc), so maybe 
>the mapping to bug-tracking systems also needs reviewing.

I don't know how git fits into the sourceware access restrictions but
I'm going to just pull all reference to bug tracking and source control
from the welcome message.

Do people with git write access really need an ssh account on sourceware?


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