This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc branches?
Tom Lord wrote:
The following was initially the concluding paragraph, but since I
think it is the most important, let me lead off with it:
`arch' is fun, cool, interesting, simple, and has a clear path to
making your and lot of other people's lives better. So let's get off
the posing and resume being hackers -- please dig into it -- I predict
you'll come to dig it. We'll find a way to solve the funding problems
as we go along.
Fine. However, I personally have my own "fun, cool, interesting"
project(s) that I'm already working on, or that I want to work on.
The same applies to many of us, or we have no time/interest hacking
on new projects after our days jobs.
`arch', unless something changes, will _not_ reach that stage. In
spite of your protests, I think you are in a position to help fix
that.
Other big projects have managed to become solid and useful using
people's spare time.
So I must, unfortunately, ask people such as you to put their
momentary convenience aside, and do a little planning and looking
ahead in this area.
You can ask it, but you cannot expect it.
Is not GCC engineering process a legitimate
concern of the SC?
No, it is a legitimate concern of the entire gcc community. It is
*not* the SC's job to initiate, lead, or fund projects. It is the
SC's job abjudicate between competing proposals, if the technical
leadersship (a mcuh less formal group of people) do not agree.
If you stick to that, you are doing the community, the market, and the
free software movement a disservice.
The Free Software movement will just have to manage. We've all done
plenty for it, and can't do everything.
Surely planning is an important function of the SC.
Only to a very limited extent. Since we have no means of
enforcement or sources of funding, and depend entirely on
volunteers, it is limited what planning can do.
Surely you recognize that effective
(i.e. proactive, positively consequentlal) planning is important at
this juncture.
It may be important, but I don't think it's going to happen.
We tend to be more re-active.
I'd love to have a "Gcc Foundation" (within the FSF of course) that had
a real budget, and real plans. I believe this has been tried before,
and may yet succeed. But I don't have the time, skills, or inclination
to do all the politicking needed.
Convincing me won't really help you or arch. I'm not an opinion-maker
in the [presumably relevant part of] Free Software world.
Hopefully this is false, given your SC membership.
The SC as a whole may have name recogniztion and influence comparable
to (say) Larry Wall or Linus Torvalds. Individually, none of us have
anywhere close to that level. That's a fact. Many of us do have a
fair level of name recognition and respect. People will talk with us,
but that doesn't mean they will give us money. Remember, we are still
in a recession. Discretionary spending is very hard to "sell".
If it is not, then
I think it is time to ask some questions about what your duty as an SC
member is -- and about the role of the SC overall.
Ask ahead. Change requires someone with the will and energy to do
better/different.
Setting up a more pro-active "foundation" has been tried. That doesn't
mean it can't succeed or shouldn't be tried again.
If I were, I'd be rich from Kawa - which a very few people rave
about.
Really, I can't begin to fathom how Kawa enters into this discussion
at all, unless as a possible implementation language for an `arch'.
It was an example of an established project close to my heart that has
technical superiority (I and others think) and happy users, but I still
can't raise enough money for it to pay myself a decent wage. So while
you have my sympathy, I can't offer you more.
In general, your modern western euro royalist approach to SC duties
("deserving infinite deference, yet responsible for nothing") is, to
put it lightly, disheartening.
You're free to start a revolution.
--
--Per Bothner
per@bothner.com http://www.bothner.com/per/