Re: A Proposal to Move to Git

On Fri, 30 Aug 2013, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:

> > Rather, changing shared files now needs three repositories rather than two
> > to change.  If we can get agreement on GCC as the master, this could be
> > automated as it is for libiberty (check into GCC and let the automatic
> > process merge to the others).
> 
> Or two repos rather than one and agreement whether src-CVS or
> the new git is the master; some files are not in GCC.

Well, such agreement for those files not in GCC (we already have GCC as 
master for libiberty and libdecnumber, for example) - unless and until we 
move the non-shared parts of include/ to a separate directory, which I 
think would be better.  (See 
<https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2013-08/msg00207.html> for my comments 
on the division of include/, with an unresolved question about whether 
anything not shared with GCC is used by anything outside of binutils+gdb.)

> For other projects not to be severely inconvenienced (i.e. to
> actually leave them free to choose) we assume here that the src
> CVS repo remains updated regarding shared files.  I did not take
> that for granted; it seemed that shared directories would remain
> read-only, but I guess that wasn't actually intended.

I consider it necessary that shared files get updated in all the 
repositories between which they are shared (with the possibility of 
removing files when no longer needed by anything in a particular 
repository).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
[email protected]