Uberbaum ok officially?

[Zack Weinberg]

On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 10:34:08PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 10:20:32PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> >Is there any reason against promoting use of uberbaum
> >officially, for example for gcc simulator testing?
> 
> As long as it is clear that this is for anonymous cvs checkouts only,
> it is ok with me.  I don't know what the political ramifications may
> be, though.  I suspect that "some people" may object to uberbaum, given
> its eclectic mix of sources from various sources.

The intended use is simulator testing of GCC, which pretty much
requires that one have a unified tree to work with.  So I hope the
politics won't be a problem.

I will be happy to make an explicit statement that the uberbaum tree
is read-only.

> Also, given uberbaum's nature, the modules and checkin policies from
> CVSROOT are always going to be behind the curve wrt the gcc or src
> repositories.

I doubt this will be a problem in practice; the module set for this
task is pretty static.

zw