This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Moving to git
- From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot gcc at googlemail dot com>
- To: Peter Bergner <bergner at vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gnu dot org" <gcc at gnu dot org>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:30:11 +0100
- Subject: Re: Moving to git
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55D61512 dot 8010002 at redhat dot com> <55D61B23 dot 3000309 at redhat dot com> <55D63403 dot 4000603 at redhat dot com> <CAJA7tRahuaA36w76YD0nE+6ur1Y8T1ThZ8ssSmGgRmzT9bUcBA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdTcMMgHBax=x42aAE+LdRyKnzNhaLxvc_VcPQVP_P7nog at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAJA7tRYwEMxTrFmFNYg0Mh9QTLyNOtVPH7kjjSTzS82RPyXHfQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <87zj1kwx6g dot fsf at igel dot home> <1440169766 dot 5188 dot 62 dot camel at otta>
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Peter Bergner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 16:09 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Ramana Radhakrishnan <email@example.com> writes:
>> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Jonathan Wakely <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> >> Teams following a different model could use a separate repo shared by
>> >> those developers, not the gcc.gnu.org one. It's much easier to do that
>> >> with git.
>> > Yes you are right they sure can, but one of the reasons that teams are
>> > doing their development on a feature branch is so that they can obtain
>> > feedback and collaborate with others in the community.
>> It is also much easier for others to pull from foreign repositories with
>> git, so this isn't a severe downside.
> It may be easy for git to pull from foreign repositories, but it may
> be difficult/impossible (policy wise) for some developers from some
> companies to be able to write to foreign repositories. At IBM, we
> cannot host our own source repositories that others can access. We can
> only write to the official source code repositories for the projects
> that we have clearance to work in. We currently have an IBM vendor
> directory where we have our branches. If we move to git (I'm all for
> it), I would hope that those can remain in the official source code
I don't think I've seen anyone argue against the existence of such
branches in the main repository.
My query was whether allowing for rebase (rewriting history) in
published feature branches was a decision to be left to the branch
maintainers or was this going to be a repository wide restriction. It
also seems odd to me that trunk follows a (manual) fast-forward /
rebase and apply kind of development workflow while feature
development branches cannot maintain these in terms of
<mainstream>....<feature_patches> without jumping through hoops.
> That said, if the GCC project created an "official" side repository
> where branches are stored, we could participate in that.