This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB 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: [maint] The GDB maintenance process

On Feb 19,  9:33am, David Carlton wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:54:50 -0500, Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com> said:
> > One thing GCC(4) and GDB are now is encouraging exprementation on
> > branches development to always occure on branches cut from the the
> > relevant repository.
> Would Red Hat be happy hosting significant branches for other
> companies?

I assume you're referring to the repository, right?

I think the answer is "yes", so long as the branch in question is
intended to (eventually) further mainline gdb development.  If the
branch is just some custom bit of work that is likely to never make
it to the mainline, probably not.

> Would those other companies be happy depending on Red
> Hat's CVS servers?

I doubt it.  But...

For the contract work that Red Hat itself does, Red Hat does not depend
solely on the external ( respository.  Red Hat has
an internal repository that it uses for customer work.  From time to time,
the public repository is merged to Red Hat's internal repository.  Also,
from time to time, work that was performed for a customer which couldn't
immediately go into the public repository is pushed out to the public.

> (Maybe a reasonable answer here is "yes, but money
> should change hands".)  It might be nice if GDB were using a source
> code management tool that didn't depend on having a single repository,
> making it easier for people to maintain public branches elsewhere but
> to still sync them with an official branch.

Hmm.  Something to think about.


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