The policy of creating vendor/users branches in binutils

[Nelson Chu]

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:50 PM Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/21 6:53 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > If the only reason for using vendor/xxx was to follow what GCC does,
> > I don't think it's a strong-enough reason to duplicate the configuration
> > we already have for users/* to vendors/*. Just my 2 cents, of course.

Thanks for pointing this out, Joel :)

> OK - so Nelson - how much of a problem would it be for you to use
> /user/risc-v branches ?

Keep using the /users/ namespace is also good.  We will create the
binutils branches in the /users/riscv-v/ recently.

> (I assume that the same issue exists should you wish to create multiple gdb branches as well).

Oh...  I think we may need them in the future, but haven't discussed
with the gdb maintainers and developers.  My personal thought is that
- keep all the draft things, including binutils and gdb, in one
integration branch.  The branch is forked from the mainline, and will
be arranged regularly.  Therefore, we will create multiple branches
only when the binutils (or gdb) have a new stable released. But we
haven't discussed this with gdb experts, so for now only binutils will
create vendor/draft branches.  Thanks, Nick :)

Thanks
Nelson