I think you may be trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you seem to be lacking some background.
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 15:19, Michael Witten <mfwit...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why is gnu.gcc.org hosting work that is specific to some company's > build system? We've long allowed different companies hold branches on gcc.gnu.org. >From one of the links I posted in my previous response: http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html#distrobranches > Why is it necessary to announce a patch [series] for this branch when it > is intended that such a patch [series] make it to the trunk? Shouldn't an > employee of your company submit a `trunk'-worthy patch [series] for review > as would anyone else? Yes, and you will see several patches from google.com addresses that are not labeled [google]. Those are meant for trunk or devel branches. It is true that if a patch is meant for trunk, it should not have a branch tag. I expect slipups like that to occur from time to time. Thanks for pointing it out. > I wonder what `issue5124041' means. Is that a reference that only has > meaning for employees of your company? No. This is Rietveld, an open source code review system. I suggested using it for code reviews a while ago and contributed a script to facilitate using it with GCC. See http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/rietveld Diego.
