Re: One version number, &c, take two

[Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>]

DJ Delorie <dj@redhat.com> writes:

>> After some shakeout time in gcc only, presumably they could start
>> using a similar scheme?  (yes, I would help adapt scripts and
>> makefiles as necessary.)
>
> Have you asked to see if they're even interested?

No; the idea was to get something working for GCC first.

...
>> What about the other files, which change occasionally?
>
> They're manually sync'd.  The cron job just monitors the two
> repositories, and emails a few people when it detects differences.
> It's a pain but neither repository is willing to cede control of the
> toplevel to the other.

My perception is that no one cares all that much, at least within gcc,
gdb, and binutils.  When was the last time anyone explicitly raised
the question to all groups involved?

>> I honestly don't see the problem here.  There is lots of stuff in
>> toplevel, config, and include that is only relevant to a subset of the
>> projects in src+gcc.
>
> Sadly, that *is* the problem.  I didn't say it was a big problem, it
> just seems like we're heading down a slippery slope.

... I just don't see that as a problem.  I guess it's like whether or
not one thinks libexec and libdata are necessary.

Anyway, right now the path of least resistance seems to be to move the
three files over to the gcc subdirectory, avoiding the question
entirely.  So I've done that in my tree.

zw