This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Wherefore art thou 2.95 Announcement?
On Sun, Aug 01, 1999 at 02:24:49PM -0700, David Starner <dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org> wrote:
> >The egcs project was successful, in large part, due to the
> >autonomy of the development group and the good sense of its main
> >personnel (like Jeff for instance).
>
> The same development group is still there. The GCC steering commitee is the
> EGCS steering committee.
And most important: the steering committee is _exactly_ the same. Just as
it was independent of any special group or company, it is now independent
of any single group or company, including the fsf.
> It didn't come to a standstill, it merely slowed way down. The fact that
I think it came to a complete standstill. The last mail I received for the
gcc2 developers list was in April.
> >The whole "Cathedral vs. Bazaar" thing
> >comes into play here in a big way.
> There is no plans to make the way GCC is developed any different from the
> way egcs was.
Exactly!
> >Otherwise, some one please tell me
> >what the heck was the benefit of becoming the "official gcc"
> >again?!?!?
egcs was superiour to gcc, no doubt, but it still had this (wrong)
"experimental" sticker on it, and people (linux distributors, software
vendors etc..) were reluctant to use it.
The thing _is_ named GCC, no matter how you put it. The name is of great
historical relevance, and this was one of the reasons the name name has
the same abbreviation as the old: "GCC".
Having two projects (no matter how dead gcc really was) did no good to
either version.
The original goal - open development (in the broadest sense) was achieved,
and so it is a good thing that egcs returned to its original name.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@goof.com |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|