This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Removal of V2 code
In article <20001120005458Q.email@example.com> you write:
>Nowadays, what tends to happen for GNU/Linux users is that somebody
>(Debian, Red Hat, etc) puts together a nice package with everyting in
>it. I wouldn't expect GCC 3.0 to appear in those distributions until
>other tools are in place. You're correct that users that aren't
>getting their GNU diet spoon-fed to them (:-)) may have to download
>development versions of some supporting tools. If we wait until all
>those tools are ready, though, we'll likely be waiting a long time...
Well, some other people take a more conservative approach and don't want
to unleash DEVELOPMENT code on the general public. I still think it is
completely, utterly WRONG to release development code in a so-called `stable'
release. If anything, it gives the impression that free software is put
together hastily, and does work slightly better than windows, but with lots
How about trying to entice the OTHER projects that are maintained by the FSF
to keep track and get a somewhat DECENT release schedule ?
I could even put forward a majorly NEW concept: how about having RELEASE DATES
for RELATED gnu projects ? Namely, you've got what we would call a
toolchain (binutils, gcc, gdb...). How about releasing a STABLE version
every year (say, 1st of january) ? and ensuring that the current year versions
work together ?
The one thing I do agree is that this is NOT FUN STUFF AT ALL.
Well, ethically, `free software' is not always fun. Having a heck of a good
time hacking also means a few hours should be sunk into the not funny parts.
Like documenting, or offering a wee little bit of support for stable versions.
In my opinion, the reason it does not quite work now is that most people just
work on the stuff that's fun for them. There are a few contributors who DO
deal with the `unnice' parts of it... (Invariably, they are also the guys who
don't really have the time for that) not enough though (for instance, have
a look at gcc's info documentation. It's incomplete. Why ? because people want
to write code, not documentation).
If you are a gcc contributor, ask yourself that question: what have you done
for gcc last year ? Was it all a fun hobby, or did you also help with other
chores ? If not, WHY NOT ???