From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29402 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2005 16:38:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29261 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2005 16:38:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 25 Jan 2005 16:38:17 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0PGcFqE011986 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:38:17 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (vpn50-81.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.81]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j0PGcEO07277; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:38:14 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9057D79; Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:37:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41F675D7.5060001@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 16:38:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DJ Delorie Cc: mark@codesourcery.com, nickc@redhat.com, paul@codesourcery.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Branches in CVS repository? References: <200501150003.j0F03Wka006774@sirius.codesourcery.com> <41EE8E1D.9010703@redhat.com> <41EE9DC8.2020500@codesourcery.com> <200501191816.30893.paul@codesourcery.com> <41F02B56.2090701@codesourcery.com> <200501202238.j0KMci6B006278@greed.delorie.com> <41F0D225.5030502@redhat.com> <200501211326.j0LDQe8c006893@greed.delorie.com> <200501211335.j0LDZ37r007021@greed.delorie.com> <41F21EC4.8020406@redhat.com> <41F3F46D.3010401@codesourcery.com> <200501231950.j0NJoOSx031107@greed.delorie.com> In-Reply-To: <200501231950.j0NJoOSx031107@greed.delorie.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00418.txt.bz2 >>Does that mean we should move the MAINTAINERS information I wrote to the >>top level too? I can easiy reword it not to be binutils-specific if we >>think this is now a project-wide consensus. This is a binutils policy, it was discussed and established on a binutils list. Other projects (GCC, GDB) already have established branch policies. > I suspect a better plan is to document the branch policy in the > BRANCHES file itself. Andrew