Re: Converting CGEN from CVS to git

* Frank Ch. Eigler <[email protected]> [2019-02-03 11:29:58 -0500]:

> 
> andrew.burgess wrote:
> 
> > I would like to discuss the idea of converting CGEN from CVS to git.
> 
> No objections here, glad to see someone is still interested!  Agreed
> that old branches are disposable, that a straight main branch cvs-to-git
> conversion is sufficient.  Any objections to just doing it?
> 
> It could be nice if someone (tm) were to pursue merging cgen into
> binutils proper, but that is a separate issue.

Yes we _could_ add CGEN to binutils (assuming we could resolve the FSF
copyright assignment), but should we?

I know right now, binutils/gdb are the only real users, but that
doesn't have to always be the case, ideally CGEN could be used for
more than just generating parts of binutils/gdb, and in that case
having the tools jammed into binutils-gdb would be a little odd.

Could we not start in a separate repository, then if we find that
there is some problem that would be made easier by having the source
in bintuils-gdb we can do that later?

Part of my motivation for patching binutils-gdb to not require CGEN
in-tree was a vision of a future where CGEN would exist as a true
standalone utility that was simply used by binutils (like gcc, flex,
etc).

Thanks,
Andrew