On Jul 30 11:18, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:47:58AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Jul 29 21:13, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> And, I think it would be nice to use the power of git to
> >> allow a logical separation between the two projects.
> >
> >I don't really care for the toplevel stuff, but what I would like to see
> >is that both projects, newlib as well as Cygwin, can be checked out,
> >updated, branched, tagged, etc, in a single operation, just as before.
> >So
> >
> >  git clone http://sourceware.org/cygwin.git
> >
> >should check out cygwin + newlib (as submodule?) and
> >
> >  git clone http://sourceware.org/newlib.git
> >
> >should check out newlib + libgloss (as submodule?).
> >
> >Is that possible with git?
> 
> If git can't automatically check out newlib as a submodule then we could
> just include a 'tag' script somewhere in cygwin.  You're going to have
> to learn a new command to tag things anyway so if it's "git tag" or
> "./tag-cygwin-newlib" it shouldn't be that big a deal.

But it's not just that, it's about all bulk commands.  You don't really
want to create scripts for all these git actions just because git
doesn't handle them, do you?  What advantage has git if it doesn't allow
to define stuff which was naturally under CVS.  Moving to git is supposed
to be progress and not a step back in the usage pattern.

What about libgloss?  If libgloss is an inherent part of the newlib git
repo, a checkout of a newlib submodule would also pull in libgloss.  Do
we want to keep it or do we want to remove it post-clone?  I'm concerned
about creating the source packages as part of the distro packaging.  A
source checkout of Cygwin should checkout all sources and not only via
some configure statement or by running another post-clone script.

Am I really asking too much?


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen
Cygwin Maintainer
Red Hat