Re: "plugin"-ifying the MELT branch.

[Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile at starynkevitch dot net>]

Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Basile
> STARYNKEVITCH<basile@starynkevitch.net> wrote:
>   
> > Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
> >     
> > > Can a branch be simply a plugin, or should I close (soon) the melt-branch
> > > and start a melt-plugin-branch on the SVN. If I do that, do I need some
> > > authorization? from whom?
> > >       
> > Apparently, nothing very special is required to start a new branch. So I
> > intend to create a new melt-plugin-branch in a few hours (or days), unless
> > there  is some objections to it;I will progressively move code from the
> > current MELT branch melt-branch into this melt-plugin-branch to make MELT a
> > big plugin.
> >
> > Also, does such a thing should be called a branch. After all, it is not a
> > derivative of an existing trunk! Maybe it should be called something
> > different!
> >     
>
> I do not think that plugins should be branches of trunk, nor should
> they live in the FSF repository.
>   

I thought on the contrary that is was expected that some code would 
become FSF owned plugins?

BTW, since MELT is a branch, its code is FSF owned. So to become a 
plugin, it should be an FSF owned plugin!

In other words, are plugins only for code outside of GCC?

Regards.

--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH         http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/
email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359
8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France
*** opinions {are only mines, sont seulement les miennes} ***