Branches in CVS repository?

[Mark Mitchell]

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>Yes, but it contains code from other subdirectories.  For example, it
>>contains all the files in the top level directory, the stuff in intl/, the
>>stuff in libiberty/, and the stuff in opcodes/.  A branch made in the tree
>>I checked out for binutils will create branches in all of these places.
>>So, we need to get agreement that it's OK to create branches in those
>>directories as well.
> 
> 
> All those directories and files are part of binutils.  Just because you
> add a branch tag does not mean that you necessarily modify those files.

I'm certainly not trying to make things hard, but I'm surprised to hear 
you say that "intl/" and "libiberty/" are part of binutils.  They're 
included in it, but, in my experience, DJ has not appreciated people 
making changes to libiberty/ without his approval.

One point of view here is that creating a branch, and then, perhaps, 
making modifications on the branch should not concern the original 
maintainers as you're not getting in their way.  I'm happy with that 
point of view, but I would like to see everyone agree on it.  I'd rather 
not go creating a branch and then find that people object.

Anyhow, since it seems like all the people involved in this discussion 
(with the exception of the still-slient libc folks) are in agreement 
that creating such a branch is OK, let's try to settle on a naming 
convention.

The informal GCC convention has been "<org>-<name>" where "org" is the 
initials of the organization creating the branch.  For "CodeSourcery, 
LLC" that would be "csl"; for "Red Hat" it would be "rh".  For an 
individual "Mark Patrick Mitchell" it would be "mpm".  Then, the "name" 
is some organization-specific description of the branch.  For example, 
"csl-arm" would be a CodeSourcery branch for doing ARM development. 
Does that sound OK to everyone?

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304