This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: Mention new CodeSourcery branches
- From: Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:28:25 +0100
- Subject: Re: PATCH: Mention new CodeSourcery branches
- Organization: SUSE Labs
- References: <419E7954.email@example.com>
On Friday 19 November 2004 23:53, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> This patch mentions two new CodeSourcery development branches in the CVS
I don't want to make a big deal about this but...
Do you really have to tie the CodeSourcery name to every branch you
have? There are some RedHat development branches that are nice to
have in CVS but not in cvs.html, e.g. the e500 branch is effectively
a RedHat branch - but it is not called the redhat-e500-branch. The
hammer-branch is the SUSE system compiler, but it is not the
suse-hammer-branch. Apple do most of their development work on the
struct-reorg-branch, not the apple-struct-reorg-branch.
You get the idea.
It is not that I *really* have a problem with you mentioning your
CodeSourcery all over the place, but this is the FSF GCC repository,
not a vendor repository.
I'm aware of the discussion about this earlier this year, starting in
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-08/msg00505.html. This was about
distribution branches. Now the vendor names are showing up under the
"Architecture-specific" list of branches in cvs.html. IMHO we should
not turn that into a corporate advertisement listing. Vendor names
should not be present in the names of architecture specific branches.
Just my $0.02.