Home Original page

git is live

Eli Zaretskii eliz@gnu.org
Thu Nov 14 17:21:00 GMT 2013 
> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:55:04 -0800
> From: Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com>
> Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>, 
> 	Peter Bergner <bergner@vnet.ibm.com>, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb <gdb@sourceware.org>, 
> 	Binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>, 
> 	Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
> >>
> >> But for decentralized systems such as git, I think vendor branches
> >> could be just as easily hosted elsewhere.  With git, it's really easy
> >> for anyone to host it somewhere, and publish its location. It's also
> >> equally easy for anyone interested in the work to add that location
> >> a remote, and fetch from it.
> >
> > Obviously, this discussion only has sense if the branch is hosted by
> > sourceware.  Otherwise, what could we do to prevent J. R. Hacker from
> > publishing a branch from her own machine?
> 
> Nothing.  But I don't see why that matters.

I was replying to Joel, who said (see above): "for decentralized
systems such as git, I think vendor branches could be just as easily
hosted elsewhere.  With git, it's really easy for anyone to host it
somewhere, and publish its location."

> I'm mildly in favor of permitting vendor branches on gcc.gnu.org for a
> different reason: it encourages vendors with GCC extensions to make
> those extensions readily available to everybody.  If we require
> vendors to handle their own hosting, we will inevitably have some who
> simply decide not to bother.

That's the crux of the issue.  Mentioning private hosting just steers
the discussion away from that issue, which was my point.
More information about the Binutils mailing list