Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?

[Jeffrey A Law <law at cygnus dot com>]

  In message <10011021306.AA08093@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>you write:
  >     <<In fact, the bulk changes from ACT have been one of the biggest
  >     offenders in the past. >>
  > 
  >     Indeed, the bulk changes here were the result of having to merge two
  >     very different streams of development, and that was not at all easy to
  >     do. Hopefully that is done now, and is not something that needs
  >     repeating in future!
  > 
  > Not only that, but these changes had little to do with ACT.  They were
  > the result of merging the old gcc2 tree into the (then) EGCS tree.
  > Sure, some of those changes originated at ACT (or were done by me with
  > my ACT hat on), but that was not the majority of the changes.
The point was that bulk merges (regardless of where they come from) are a
particularly bad way to sync the official GNU sources with some other
source base.  I was just using the merges you did as an example.  The
bulk merges I used to do from the gcc2 sources before gcc2 deveopment
finally died were just as disruptive.

jeff