Vendor branches on sourceware.org's binutils-gdb repo

Joel Brobecker brobecker@adacore.com
Mon Apr 7 03:51:00 GMT 2014


> 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



More information about the Gdb mailing list