This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: Original commit history for gfortran
On 2011-06-18 14:39, "C. Bergström" wrote:
On 06/18/11 05:16 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
On 06/18/2011 12:12 PM, Toon Moene wrote:
On 06/18/2011 05:05 AM, Christopher Bergström wrote:
We're in the process of considering contributing to gfortran for a
special project, but when we started to vet the codebase we hit a bump
in lack of commit history.
Additional information is here:
The above gives you the history after the split from the g95 project:
in January 2003.
The original commit by Paul Brook of the gcc-g95 repository contents
to the GCC repository is here:
So I converted the cvs repo to git so I could actually dig and compare a
Here's an example of what we're trying to understand
This file wasn't in g95, but then magically appears in Paul's initial
# Unless I've messed up somewhere along my path..
# Was this file in gcc the whole time and just an external dep?
I think the history of this particular change went like this: Steven
Bosscher was concerned about making g95 more modular. Part of that
process was splitting the big g95.h file into several parts -- that's
where arith.h comes from. Another part of that endeavour was moving the
various tree dumpers into dump-parse-tree.c -- which IMO defeated the
original purpose of having them in their corresponding source files
(namely documentation), but on the other hand made that part more
As for the history, there was another sourceforge project dedicated to
g95 -> gcc integration bsides gcc-g95, its name escapes me right now.
IIRC some of the I/O library was developed there.
Between the closing of g95's tree and gcc-g95's launch some development
happened in private trees as pointed out before, but apart from that and
Andy's very initial work which happened without CVS, you should find all
the history in public record.
I'm sorry that I'm writing the following paragraph, but I think I
should. I heard rumors that Andy was hired by Pathscale, so I'm a bit
worried about your intentions. You're not trying to vet the code for
the parts of the code which are available to relicensing to Pathscale
for commerical exploitation, are you? That's something that may under
very specific circumstances be allowed by the usual copyright
assignment? You will probably understand that Andy's past behavior
(including blatant disregard for free-software licenses, Steve already
told the story) might make me question the behavior of people associated
with him, even though I feel very rude doing so, and even though you
alrady expressed good intentions.