Re: GCC 3.5 "integration branch"

[Momchil Velikov <velco at fadata dot bg>]

>>>>> "David" == David Edelsohn <edelsohn@gnu.org> writes:

David> We feel that the unauthorized creation of an "integration
David> branch" for 3.5, while well-intentioned, was counterproductive
David> and usurped the responsibilities of the GCC SC and RM to manage
David> GCC development.  This was especially unfortunate when
David> objections to the "integration branch" proposal, solicited by a
David> developer, were ignored.  While the GNU GCC Project encourages
David> development branches, primary GNU GCC development branches are
David> the responsibility of the GCC SC and RM.

  This is absurd.

  How is it counterproductive?  How exactly the development of GCC is
hurt (or is expected to be hurt) by such a branch?

  As I understand it, there's a lack of consensus whether GCC should
go the tree-ssa way or the non-tree-ssa way.

  What could be better than exploring both ways, by creating a line of
development specifically for competing with the current mainline?  In
fact, it's the SC, who should have created this branch.

  Also, the very notion of "authorization to create branch" is
disturbing.  Because this directly means "authorization to work on
GCC".

  If the need for such an authorization is dictated by administrative
and/or technical reasons, the SC will better spent its time thinking
how to replace the SCM, which is the counterproductive factor
actually, as demonstrated by this very thread.

David> and usurped the responsibilities of the GCC SC and RM to manage
David> GCC development.

  Sounds familiar, eh? Like EGCS "usurped" the responsibilities of FSF
maintainers.  Which, at the end, was good for GCC and GNU, no?

~velco