* Moving GDB sources to subversion? @ 2005-10-28 22:23 Joel Brobecker 2005-10-28 22:53 ` Simon Richter ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Joel Brobecker @ 2005-10-28 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gdb Hello, I think GCC is getting ready to move to subversion as the revision control system. Is there any similar plan for GDB? Thanks, -- Joel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 22:23 Moving GDB sources to subversion? Joel Brobecker @ 2005-10-28 22:53 ` Simon Richter 2005-10-28 22:56 ` Mark Kettenis ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Simon Richter @ 2005-10-28 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1190 bytes --] Hi, Joel Brobecker schrieb: > I think GCC is getting ready to move to subversion as the revision > control system. Is there any similar plan for GDB? At present, there appears to be a SCM war going on, with everyone trying to pull as many projects towards their side as possible. As a cogito fan, I'm no exception to that :-). I personally don't like svn for the simple reason that it provides no substantial improvement over CVS. It is still centrally organized and works best if only a core group who knows the system by heart commits patches, in case they need to be merged; at the same time, it has a very informal notion of branches and tags, which is a great disadvantage in my opinion. I've learned to live with CVS by using a cronjob that incrementally imports new commits into my working tree, which happens to be git-based; a similar thing could be done to create a SVN repository that tracked CVS and allowed people to use svn if happens to be their preferred tool. Using svn for the master tree would make this difficult because of the aforementioned informality on branches and tags; an import script would be forced to use heuristics to properly determine them. Simon [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 374 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 22:23 Moving GDB sources to subversion? Joel Brobecker 2005-10-28 22:53 ` Simon Richter @ 2005-10-28 22:56 ` Mark Kettenis 2005-10-28 23:02 ` Joel Brobecker 2005-10-28 23:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2005-10-29 2:49 ` Stan Shebs 2005-11-02 22:56 ` Jim Blandy 3 siblings, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Mark Kettenis @ 2005-10-28 22:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: brobecker; +Cc: gdb > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:22:53 -0700 > From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> > > Hello, > > I think GCC is getting ready to move to subversion as the revision > control system. Is there any similar plan for GDB? Why should we? Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 22:56 ` Mark Kettenis @ 2005-10-28 23:02 ` Joel Brobecker 2005-10-28 23:04 ` Andreas Tobler 2005-10-28 23:08 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2005-10-28 23:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 1 sibling, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Joel Brobecker @ 2005-10-28 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Kettenis; +Cc: gdb > > I think GCC is getting ready to move to subversion as the revision > > control system. Is there any similar plan for GDB? > > Why should we? I wasn't implying that we should. I haven't seen any discussion about this (but maybe I missed them). However, I have heard rumors that GCC *is* going to move to svn. I think GCC and GDB have been in the same physical repository so far (src?), so I was afraid that a change for GCC would necessarily impact GDB. -- Joel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 23:02 ` Joel Brobecker @ 2005-10-28 23:04 ` Andreas Tobler 2005-10-28 23:08 ` Ian Lance Taylor 1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Andreas Tobler @ 2005-10-28 23:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: Mark Kettenis, gdb Joel Brobecker wrote: >>>I think GCC is getting ready to move to subversion as the revision >>>control system. Is there any similar plan for GDB? >> >>Why should we? > > > I wasn't implying that we should. I haven't seen any discussion about > this (but maybe I missed them). However, I have heard rumors that GCC > *is* going to move to svn. I think GCC and GDB have been in the same > physical repository so far (src?), so I was afraid that a change for > GCC would necessarily impact GDB. > gcc _has_ moved to svn today. Means it is active from today. svn. Andreas ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 23:02 ` Joel Brobecker 2005-10-28 23:04 ` Andreas Tobler @ 2005-10-28 23:08 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2005-10-29 0:15 ` H. J. Lu 1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2005-10-28 23:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: Mark Kettenis, gdb Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes: > > > I think GCC is getting ready to move to subversion as the revision > > > control system. Is there any similar plan for GDB? > > > > Why should we? > > I wasn't implying that we should. I haven't seen any discussion about > this (but maybe I missed them). However, I have heard rumors that GCC > *is* going to move to svn. I think GCC and GDB have been in the same > physical repository so far (src?), so I was afraid that a change for > GCC would necessarily impact GDB. gcc has moved to subversion. The conversion finished today. This does not affect gdb. At present gdb, binutils, newlib, and cygwin share a single CVS repository. gcc is in a subversion repository. This does affect anybody using the uberbaum pseudo-repository; if you don't know what that is, don't ask. It would be simpler for the sourceware.org overseers (including myself) if every project converted to subversion. And subversion does have some advantages over CVS. But really each project is going to have to decide for itself whether to switch or not. (If you want to switch to something other than CVS or subversion, you will have to be prepared to convince the overseers to do whatever management is required by whatever new system is chosen. Daniel Berlin went through that process for subversion for gcc.) Hope this helps. Ian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 23:08 ` Ian Lance Taylor @ 2005-10-29 0:15 ` H. J. Lu 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: H. J. Lu @ 2005-10-29 0:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ian Lance Taylor; +Cc: Joel Brobecker, Mark Kettenis, gdb I'd like to see gdb move to bugzilla before subversion. H.J. On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 04:08:34PM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes: > > > > > I think GCC is getting ready to move to subversion as the revision > > > > control system. Is there any similar plan for GDB? > > > > > > Why should we? > > > > I wasn't implying that we should. I haven't seen any discussion about > > this (but maybe I missed them). However, I have heard rumors that GCC > > *is* going to move to svn. I think GCC and GDB have been in the same > > physical repository so far (src?), so I was afraid that a change for > > GCC would necessarily impact GDB. > > gcc has moved to subversion. The conversion finished today. > > This does not affect gdb. At present gdb, binutils, newlib, and > cygwin share a single CVS repository. gcc is in a subversion > repository. > > This does affect anybody using the uberbaum pseudo-repository; if you > don't know what that is, don't ask. > > It would be simpler for the sourceware.org overseers (including > myself) if every project converted to subversion. And subversion does > have some advantages over CVS. > > But really each project is going to have to decide for itself whether > to switch or not. > > (If you want to switch to something other than CVS or subversion, you > will have to be prepared to convince the overseers to do whatever > management is required by whatever new system is chosen. Daniel > Berlin went through that process for subversion for gcc.) > > Hope this helps. > > Ian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 22:56 ` Mark Kettenis 2005-10-28 23:02 ` Joel Brobecker @ 2005-10-28 23:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2005-10-28 23:25 ` Joel Brobecker 2005-10-28 23:25 ` Mark Kettenis 1 sibling, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2005-10-28 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Kettenis; +Cc: brobecker, gdb On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 12:56:02AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 15:22:53 -0700 > > From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> > > > > Hello, > > > > I think GCC is getting ready to move to subversion as the revision > > control system. Is there any similar plan for GDB? > > Why should we? I'd rather not rehash the months of discussion from the GCC list about this :-) From my point of view: - It's similar enough to CVS to not be terribly disruptive. - It's generally more robust than CVS. - Atomic changesets are a nice thing to have nowadays. - Branches are cheaper, and merges are easier. - Tags don't lock the repository for half an hour. - Oh, and staying consistent for those of us who work on both GCC and GDB. I've used it, I like it, I think it's a mild improvement rather than a revolution. I'm not violent about it. Someone needs to think about how the src repository would work, though. Checking out just part of a subversion repository is harder than it was in CVS. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 23:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2005-10-28 23:25 ` Joel Brobecker 2005-10-28 23:57 ` Christopher Faylor 2005-10-28 23:25 ` Mark Kettenis 1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Joel Brobecker @ 2005-10-28 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Kettenis, gdb > I'd rather not rehash the months of discussion from the GCC list about > this :-) > > >From my point of view: It is not my intention to push in any direction. I'll be happy to move to svn if most of us think it's better, but I'm also happy to stick to CVS. -- Joel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 23:25 ` Joel Brobecker @ 2005-10-28 23:57 ` Christopher Faylor 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2005-10-28 23:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gdb On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 04:25:53PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: >>I'd rather not rehash the months of discussion from the GCC list about >>this :-) >> >>From my point of view: > >It is not my intention to push in any direction. I'll be happy to move >to svn if most of us think it's better, but I'm also happy to stick to >CVS. As Ian said, from the point of view of the people who maintain sourceware, it would be easier if everything (or at least every substantial project) moved to using subversion. The benefits have been outlined already. FWIW, we'll probably move cygwin to subversion as soon as the gcc dust has settled. cgf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 23:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2005-10-28 23:25 ` Joel Brobecker @ 2005-10-28 23:25 ` Mark Kettenis 2005-10-28 23:56 ` Nick Roberts 2005-11-07 0:27 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 1 sibling, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Mark Kettenis @ 2005-10-28 23:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: drow; +Cc: brobecker, gdb > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:14:30 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 12:56:02AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > Why should we? > > I'd rather not rehash the months of discussion from the GCC list about > this :-) The we're on the same wavelength. Let's put our effort into improving GDB; not in changing our infrastructure, let alone discussions about our infrastructure. Mark ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 23:25 ` Mark Kettenis @ 2005-10-28 23:56 ` Nick Roberts 2005-10-29 10:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 2005-11-07 0:27 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Nick Roberts @ 2005-10-28 23:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Kettenis; +Cc: drow, brobecker, gdb > The we're on the same wavelength. Let's put our effort into improving > GDB; not in changing our infrastructure, let alone discussions about > our infrastructure. Following that argument, GDB would still be distributed by tape. We can assume that GCC developers have made a sound technical decision. We should focus on how GDB development differs from that of GCC and whether that difference impacts on the choice of version control used. Nick ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 23:56 ` Nick Roberts @ 2005-10-29 10:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 2005-10-30 0:11 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2005-10-30 2:47 ` Bob Rossi 0 siblings, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2005-10-29 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Nick Roberts; +Cc: gdb > From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz> > Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:56:30 +1300 > Cc: drow@false.org, brobecker@adacore.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com > > We can assume that GCC developers have made a sound technical decision. Yes, we can assume that. But no one said that there's only one sound technical decision. I'm sure there were downsides to that decision even in the context of the GCC project (as opposed to a general decision that _all_ GNU projects should adopt svn). I'm sure that the decision they made was influenced, at least to some degree, by the persons who were involved in making the decision, and by their social dynamics. These aspects are different in the GDB case, and, of course, GDB is a different type of project with different (albeit similar) development and maintenance patterns and different goals. It is quite possible that the same set of considerations as those that were discussed by the GCC team will, in our case, lead to different conclusions and to different decisions, that are no less sound and technical. > We should focus on how GDB development differs from that of GCC and > whether that difference impacts on the choice of version control > used. Yes, 100% agreement here. But we could also decide not to do this right now, and instead concentrate on development. That would be a sound technical decision as well. Btw, where's the thread (or threads) in which GCC people discussed this issue? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-29 10:57 ` Eli Zaretskii @ 2005-10-30 0:11 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2005-10-30 4:27 ` Eli Zaretskii 2005-10-30 2:47 ` Bob Rossi 1 sibling, 1 reply; 21+ messages in thread From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2005-10-30 0:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: gdb Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes: > Btw, where's the thread (or threads) in which GCC people discussed > this issue? Switching to something other than CVS has been discussed for a long time. Here are a couple of relevant threads. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/msg00264.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-02/msg00204.html (the start of the thread is missing from gcc.gnu.org for some reason--it can be seen here: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/84811) Ian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-30 0:11 ` Ian Lance Taylor @ 2005-10-30 4:27 ` Eli Zaretskii 0 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2005-10-30 4:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ian Lance Taylor; +Cc: gdb > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org > From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com> > Date: 29 Oct 2005 17:11:32 -0700 > > Here are a couple of relevant threads. > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-06/msg00264.html > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-02/msg00204.html > (the start of the thread is missing from gcc.gnu.org for some > reason--it can be seen here: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.patches/84811) Thanks. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-29 10:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 2005-10-30 0:11 ` Ian Lance Taylor @ 2005-10-30 2:47 ` Bob Rossi 2005-10-30 4:38 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2005-10-30 4:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 1 sibling, 2 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Bob Rossi @ 2005-10-30 2:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: Nick Roberts, gdb On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 12:57:02PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz> > > Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:56:30 +1300 > > Cc: drow@false.org, brobecker@adacore.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com > > > > We can assume that GCC developers have made a sound technical decision. > > Yes, we can assume that. But no one said that there's only one sound > technical decision. I'm sure there were downsides to that decision > even in the context of the GCC project (as opposed to a general > decision that _all_ GNU projects should adopt svn). I'm sure that the > decision they made was influenced, at least to some degree, by the > persons who were involved in making the decision, and by their social > dynamics. Definatly. For instance, look at the Linux kernel. Linus has already said "PS. Don't bother telling me about subversion." at http://lwn.net/Articles/130681/ Also, The Subversion Development Team wrote a letter to tell people to stop bothering Linus about subversion. http://subversion.tigris.org/subversion-linus.html I personally don't see a large difference between the Linux kernel development and the GCC developement stratagies. With that in mind, it's hard for me to understand why GCC *is* a good choice for subversion and Linux *is not*. If it was up to me, I'd rather see GDB switch to a distributed RCS. I usually have several tree's and it takes a long time to update them all by hitting the internet each time. Until we get a distributed RCS, subversion definatly seems like an improvement to CVS. I'd be happy to see the change. Bob Rossi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-30 2:47 ` Bob Rossi @ 2005-10-30 4:38 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2005-10-30 4:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Ian Lance Taylor @ 2005-10-30 4:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bob Rossi; +Cc: Eli Zaretskii, Nick Roberts, gdb Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net> writes: > Definatly. For instance, look at the Linux kernel. Linus has already > said > "PS. Don't bother telling me about subversion." at > http://lwn.net/Articles/130681/ > > Also, The Subversion Development Team wrote a letter to tell people to > stop bothering Linus about subversion. > http://subversion.tigris.org/subversion-linus.html > > I personally don't see a large difference between the Linux kernel > development and the GCC developement stratagies. With that in mind, it's > hard for me to understand why GCC *is* a good choice for subversion and > Linux *is not*. I don't know how much people want to get into this on the gdb list, but.... There is a big difference between Linux kernel development practices and gcc development practices. In Linux kernel development a number of different people maintain large separate branches on an ongoing basis, and there are frequent cross-merges between different branches. Large projects are developed and maintained by independent groups of developers, and then merged into other main trees over time. There is no single master repository--obviously the one that Linus controls has some priority, but I believe that none of the major commercial Linux distros actually make releases out of it. As far as I know there is no formal management of copyright issues. For gcc, on the other hand, there is a single master repository. Significant gcc support companies such as CodeSourcery and Red Hat make releases directly from branches in the master repository. In order to get write access to the master repository, you must sign formal copyright assignment papers with the FSF. There are no long-lived independent branches; the goal of all branches is to merge into the trunk. The upshot is that Linux requires a distributed source code control system. In fact, Bitkeeper was developed with an eye on what Linus required. gcc does not require a distributed source code control system. gcc might benefit from one; who knows? We seriously considered monotone, but at present it simply is not fast enough to manage the gcc repository. The same is true of arch. We looked at git; it presumably has the features that Linus needs, but it does not have the features that gcc needs. Hope this helps. Ian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-30 2:47 ` Bob Rossi 2005-10-30 4:38 ` Ian Lance Taylor @ 2005-10-30 4:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2005-10-30 4:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eli Zaretskii, Nick Roberts, gdb On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 10:47:10PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > If it was up to me, I'd rather see GDB switch to a distributed RCS. I > usually have several tree's and it takes a long time to update them all > by hitting the internet each time. Until we get a distributed RCS, > subversion definatly seems like an improvement to CVS. I'd be happy to > see the change. In addition to what Ian said, with which I completely agree, this is not a justification for a distributed version control system. You can do this with cvs (rsync the repository or use cvsup) and with svn (rsync the repository or use svk). -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 23:25 ` Mark Kettenis 2005-10-28 23:56 ` Nick Roberts @ 2005-11-07 0:27 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 1 sibling, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2005-11-07 0:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Kettenis; +Cc: brobecker, gdb On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 01:24:17AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 19:14:30 -0400 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> > > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 12:56:02AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > > > Why should we? > > > > I'd rather not rehash the months of discussion from the GCC list about > > this :-) > > The we're on the same wavelength. Let's put our effort into improving > GDB; not in changing our infrastructure, let alone discussions about > our infrastructure. On the contrary, I think I could do GDB development more effectively if it were not managed by CVS. Subversion is a lot more useful for things like branching, and finding bug fixes to merge them back to an old release branch your customers are still using. Which I waste a lot of time on. The only reason I'm not being more vocal about my preference to switch is that the src repository poses certain unique challenges that GCC didn't. Specifically, while cvs modules are insufficient for our needs, we've gotten used to their quirks and can cope with them. Subversion would have a whole different set of problems if you didn't want to check out the whole src tree. I don't think it's feasible for us to switch until someone has invested some time thinking about that problem, and coming up with a better solution than anything I've come up with so far. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 22:23 Moving GDB sources to subversion? Joel Brobecker 2005-10-28 22:53 ` Simon Richter 2005-10-28 22:56 ` Mark Kettenis @ 2005-10-29 2:49 ` Stan Shebs 2005-11-02 22:56 ` Jim Blandy 3 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Stan Shebs @ 2005-10-29 2:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb Joel Brobecker wrote: >Hello, > >I think GCC is getting ready to move to subversion as the revision >control system. Is there any similar plan for GDB? > We've been waiting for your writeup. :-) But seriously, in my limited use of subversion so far, I've been pleased with it, and it seems worth converting src at some point. Meanwhile, we can pass the popcorn while watching GCC change over... Stan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
* Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion? 2005-10-28 22:23 Moving GDB sources to subversion? Joel Brobecker ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2005-10-29 2:49 ` Stan Shebs @ 2005-11-02 22:56 ` Jim Blandy 3 siblings, 0 replies; 21+ messages in thread From: Jim Blandy @ 2005-11-02 22:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gdb Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes: > I think GCC is getting ready to move to subversion as the revision > control system. Is there any similar plan for GDB? SUBVERSION IS THE LIGHT AND THE WAY!!! ALL WHO DENY ITS SUPREMACY SHALL BE CAST INTO THE PIT OF ETERNAL PERDITION AND DISORDERLY COMMAND-LINE ARGUMENTS!!! *ahem* "Yes, much better, thanks." ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 21+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-11-07 0:27 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 21+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2005-10-28 22:23 Moving GDB sources to subversion? Joel Brobecker 2005-10-28 22:53 ` Simon Richter 2005-10-28 22:56 ` Mark Kettenis 2005-10-28 23:02 ` Joel Brobecker 2005-10-28 23:04 ` Andreas Tobler 2005-10-28 23:08 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2005-10-29 0:15 ` H. J. Lu 2005-10-28 23:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2005-10-28 23:25 ` Joel Brobecker 2005-10-28 23:57 ` Christopher Faylor 2005-10-28 23:25 ` Mark Kettenis 2005-10-28 23:56 ` Nick Roberts 2005-10-29 10:57 ` Eli Zaretskii 2005-10-30 0:11 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2005-10-30 4:27 ` Eli Zaretskii 2005-10-30 2:47 ` Bob Rossi 2005-10-30 4:38 ` Ian Lance Taylor 2005-10-30 4:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2005-11-07 0:27 ` Daniel Jacobowitz 2005-10-29 2:49 ` Stan Shebs 2005-11-02 22:56 ` Jim Blandy
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).