This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GNU Fortran 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: Original commit history for gfortran

On 06/19/11 10:03 PM, Tobias Schlüter wrote:

Hi Christopher,

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
little better..

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 self-contained.

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.

Thanks for the information
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.
Why speculate or give credence to rumors - just ask if it's important to you
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.
I'd rather someone be rude and honest than quiet and polite.

I can't say I really care about Andy's alleged copyright infringement. (My general point on matters like this is litigate or shut up. We're all here to get work done and licensing (licensing trolls and I don't mean you) is the single biggest detractor from open source progress I know of)

Andy started the project and at the time of the fork still was the majority contributor. Cut the guy some slack for having a bit of ego and wanting to maintain control. It's been how many years now and still too much hard feelings. I'm biased but it's based on a positive working relationship.

Please put in google open source ekopath or pathscale and see whose name and what news comes up.
(In the past 2 years I've directly been responsible for open sourcing more code than a lot of people and moved PathScale to an entirely open development model for x86.)

Now with that I'll play devil's advocate..

1) What's wrong with commercial software?
2) What's wrong if we strip out your contributions (20 patches if I'm not mistaken) from g95 and use it in a closed commercial product? (See more comments below)
There's a couple views I can imagine people will have

1) GNU/GPL - Using licensing to try to ensure contributions go back upstream. To me this works a majority of the time, but not always. (I think it varies on the project and circumstances. I have a personal laundry list of companies I'd like to force to give changes in public, but their products are so tightly controlled and I'm not a copyright holder so can't do a damn thing about it. Then again even if the changes were public they aren't likely going to get merged anywhere or be useful. So who has time to care at the end of the day. Would you believe I wanted PathScale to be open source before I ever worked here and was blocked...)

2) BSD - No comment

3) Fortran HPC community as a whole - The majority of Fortran users I know work in or around HPC. (I may be biased) With that I can't say most of them care about open source at all. (Some do) They buy/use PathScale/PGI/Intel and for the larger labs I'm not sure if they use gfortran. (They may, but I really don't have that data) Most of them want their code to compile, get best performance and sometimes use F2K3. You're not going to stop them from buying commercially supported compilers.

In this case I serve the end user/community and not directly open source. Why? Would it be good for Fortran if a F2K3 front-end was freely available under a commercially friendly license? (This is a deeper question I'd love feedback on)
a. I see people moving away from Fortran and more towards C++. (Sorry no empirical data to back this, but how do we stop this trend)
b. People are trying to write books on F2K3, but what compiler can they even base their book on?
c. Would there be any positive impact if every major vendor had the same front-end as gfortran and implemented the latest standard? (or even worse sent patches)
d. Would there be any negative impact to gfortran if PGI/Intel took the front-end? (Or even worse PathScale *gasp*)

Not all commercial companies are bad (Redhat, Canonical.. etc). From my perspective it's commercial companies that generally pay people to work full time and get real engineering in open source done.

I could go on, but it's not productive..

If you have concerns about PathScale email me privately. My intention is to vet the codebase. Vetting g95 is relatively easy, but there's a chasm between it and gfortran I'm trying to map. If that's successful I'd like to figure out if/how PathScale can contribute. if we continue to get much more negatively this early on (I don't care the reason). I'll just forget the whole thing.


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