This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Vendor branches on sourceware.org's binutils-gdb repo
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Aaro Koskinen <aaro dot koskinen at iki dot fi>
- Cc: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>, Edjunior Barbosa Machado <emachado at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, GDB <gdb at sourceware dot org>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>, Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 20:51:20 -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> <m3vbunyoza dot fsf at redhat dot com> <20140406191404 dot GC7558 at drone dot musicnaut dot iki dot fi>
> On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 03:02:49AM -0300, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
> > Hm, just a comment, but nothing major or blocker. I understand the need
> > for vendor branches, but I also think that we should make more use of
> > git's distributed model. For example, why can't Company X (I am not
> > criticizing anyone particularly, really) create and maintain its own git
> > repository, with all the necessary branches there? Wouldn't that be
> > better than (a) "polluting" sourceware's repository and (b) putting an
> > extra pressure on sourceware's infra?
>
> I think it's very useful for users to have all vendor branches
> in a single repository. At least with glibc this has helped me a lot
> (as a user) when identifying and cherry-picking needed fixes to
> my own systems.
FWIW: I have found that the extra branches are just making me download
lots of commits that I have no use for, and I suspect that this is the
case for many of us. That's the default behavior, and most users will be
impacted by those. While it's convenient, it is also very easy to pull
a branch from another repository. I won't strongly object to vendor
branches, especially since we already have some, but I think it's
unnecessary. I do strongly suggest, however, that they all hosted under
the same namespace and then split into sub-namespaces (Eg.
"vendor/[vendor-name]/[branch-name]").
--
Joel