This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Mistaken change in GCC (fwd)
- To: jbuck at racerx dot synopsys dot com, zackw at Stanford dot EDU
- Subject: Re: Mistaken change in GCC (fwd)
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 02:17:37 -0800 (PST)
- Cc: dewar at gnat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gerd at gnu dot org, pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at
> Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 22:42:36 -0800
> From: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw@Stanford.EDU>
> To: Joe Buck <email@example.com>
> > Documented features may not be removed from gcc without the agreement of
> > 3/4 of the steering committee. Period. You are proposing to remove
> > features. Are you sure that you have the votes?
> Excuse me, I have never heard this before.
I'll side with Zack on this as well. If you (the SC) set policy, then
you _must_ communicate this policy. Was this communicated, where?
Has this policy ever been followed? What is the % of feature removals
that followed the policy?
I disagree with the policy. The can-write people should be free to do
what they do. This means adding features, extending functionality,
removing functionality and so on. However, a good maintainer will
known when to do something and when not to, they will know when to
discuss an issue before checking in an idea, they will know when to
abandon a bad idea and so on. A new maintainer will be slightly more
cautious, learning the customs, and why they are what they are, a
seasoned maintainer will know when to change customs.