Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <10010121139.AA01770@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>you write:
  >       > But I don't think we're here yet or anytime in less than a year, so
  >  I
  >       > don't think it is useful to argue on the source merging process rig
  > ht
  >       > now.
  > 
  >     I would claim the opposite.  We need this to happen sooner, not later.
  >     The longer we wait, the more difficult our work becomes and the longer
  >     we have to deal with the problem of developers making changes, but 
  >     being unable to test that they haven't broken Ada.
  > 
  > Sorry, I don't follow.  You comment certainly argues in favor of putting in
  > the tree soon, which everybody already agrees on, but how does it argue in
  > favor of deciding on a merge policy soon, which is what Laurent was talking
  > about?
From my experience it's a lot easier to deal with the merge policy at the same
time you move the bits into the tree since it has major impacts on the
development policy.

jeff