From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Cc: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Moving GDB sources to subversion?
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 02:47:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051030024709.GA12884@white> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <u4q70si9t.fsf@gnu.org>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-10-30 2:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-10-28 22:23 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 [this message]
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
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20051030024709.GA12884@white \
--to=bob@brasko.net \
--cc=eliz@gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=nickrob@snap.net.nz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).