Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>]

Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com> writes:

> Robert Dewar wrote:
> > 
> > <<You're working on free software for the fsf, therefore IMO you ought
> > to be doing your development in the open if at all possible.  And
> > clearly (as Cygnus nee Red Hat and Codesourcery demonstrate) it is
> > not only possible, but not particularly difficult.
> > >>
> > 
> > Actually from past experiences recently, e.g. with the ia64 port, I have
> > been struck by how closed the development was. Same thing for gdb5, this
> > was kept under wraps for a long time. A large company (I won't name names)
> > that we worked with was essentially operating as though it were under
> > non-disclosure. Both the ia64 port and gdb5 were sudden massive updates,
> > and it is hard to see how else it could have been done.
> 
> The GDB 5 changes were basically the last gasp of the old way of
> working on GDB.  Since we didn't think anybody else cared what we
> did with GDB internals, the reasoning went that there wasn't much
> point in posting a lot of information externally, since the developers
> involved were on Cygnus' internal mailing lists, and the discussion
> happened there.  In retrospect, it meant that we missed out on input
> from other people who've since become valuable contributors to the
> open process, so I wouldn't recommend to anybody that they go the
> closed way again, at least for general architectural improvements.
> 

I still don't get what massive gdb 5 changes were done so amazingly privately,
unless the changelogs are wrong or misleading me. They probably are misleading.
I was only submitting C++ patches and a few general improvements at
the time.

I know GDB development wasn't exactly open, but since about january of
2000, everything seemed to being done in the open, which is months
before gdb 5 even branched.


--Dan