Re: git is live

> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 08:55:04 -0800
> From: Ian Lance Taylor <[email protected]>
> Cc: Joel Brobecker <[email protected]>, Richard Earnshaw <[email protected]>, 
> 	Peter Bergner <[email protected]>, Tom Tromey <[email protected]>, gdb <[email protected]>, 
> 	Binutils <[email protected]>, 
> 	Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <[email protected]>
> 
> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> From: Joel Brobecker <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> 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.