This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)

From: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
To: Steven Bosscher <stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:03:40 -0700
Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
References: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0903131702240.1206@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <571f6b510903130930k93dd681ib9bc843851953d16@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 09:30:19AM -0700, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
> > We have been asked by the SC to not branch for now but wait for
> > the wording for the new runtime license to arrive from the FSF and
> > that being put in place.
> 
> This is the saddest thing that I have seen in GCC politics so far.

I don't understand why you think it's sad.  The reason for the delay
is the objections that were raised on this list, well-summarized by
Ian Taylor in

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-01/msg00596.html

The delay is because the FSF is taking these objections seriously
and is trying to correct the problems.  Would it be happier for you
if the FSF just ignored developers' concerns?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
  - From: Steven Bosscher

References:
- GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
  - From: Steven Bosscher

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]