This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sourceware.org mailing list for the crossgcc project.
See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
* Allan Clark <allanc@chickenandporn.com> wrote: > Of the others who do agree that patches are KISS, and who want an > atomic "handoff" that says "10 years from now, this binary spool will > still work without need of an external site, firewall access, or > networking", you're trying to make that choice for them. And this cannot be done w/ git ? Why not just handing-off an complete git repo ? > Take for example the handoffs of Bulverde toolchains -- in keeping > with their GPL obligations, intel used to offer a full download and/or > media completely including an approved, supported toolchain; your > change makes that impossible Why so ? What's the problem to put an git repo into the tarball ? BTW: are we speaking of source or binary distribution ? > Adopting git means that the company's existing SCM is valueless (they > kept it for a reason -- other SCMs do offer things git doesn't have), > and they need to approve/maintain/support it plus regularly sync > in/out form their current SCM. The same has to be done w/ text-based patches and external tarballs. (from git side, easily scriptable). They'll still have to maintain (means: apply and later create) separate patches - their SCM cannot offer any help here (besides just archiving patch files themselves). BTW: what do other SCM's offer that git cannot ? BTW#2: I'm currently working for a company which (for certain strange political reasons) uses TFS. Needless to say its buggy and slow by design (let's just consider their stone-aged single-file based approach, which makes the whole area of branching extremly complex and error- prone - M$ tells it in its own papers - and not even daring to think of important operations like rebase ...). And, of course, it's almost unusable from GNU/Linux side (or anywhere else outside MSVC). Takes about 10% of my daily time to transfer the changes from/to TFS ;-o > So your change both forces that choice to switch to git, and means > that GPL obligations are more difficult or impossible. How exactly does the GPL limit _using_ the git vcs ? cu -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt@metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |