This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug target/14344] [3.3.3 Regression] MinGW Bootstrap Failure
- From: "cgf at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 29 Feb 2004 23:36:41 -0000
- Subject: [Bug target/14344] [3.3.3 Regression] MinGW Bootstrap Failure
- References: <20040229144929.14344.stl@caltech.edu>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From cgf at redhat dot com 2004-02-29 23:36 -------
Subject: Re: [3.3.3 Regression] MinGW Bootstrap Failure
On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 11:47:47PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> writes:
>
>| On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 11:34:40PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>| >| With MinGW, I do take lots of guidance from Danny, however, and he
>| >| usually does step in to help with issues like this.
>| >
>| >OK, would you "sponsor" his being appointed as Cygwin and MinGW
>| >maintainer if I make such proposal to the SC?
>|
>| Danny has repeatedly said that he doesn't want that responsibility.
>
>I don't understand your statement. It comment #14, Danny said:
>
> Gaby wrote:
> > Are you interested in maintaining the MinGW port of FSF GCC?
>
> I am interested in maintaining the mingw port, if OK with CGF. I
> have been de facto maintainer for awhile now. Most of the patches
> I have submitted affect both cygwin and mingw.
I hadn't read that statement, obviously.
>| I'm beginning to think this should be in the FAQ or something...
>
>I like FAQs, but in this case I don't know what it would be about, for
>you're claiming something which contradicts what Danny just said.
I was representing what Danny had repeatedly asserted whenever I
asked him about this. He's since changed his mind, apparently.
I have no problem whatsoever with adding him to the maintainership for
mingw/cygwin. It's past due, IMO.
cgf
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14344