Re: gcc branches?

[Tom Lord <lord at emf dot net>]

The following was initially the concluding paragraph, but since I 
think it is the most important, let me lead off with it:

`arch' is fun, cool, interesting, simple, and has a clear path to
making your and lot of other people's lives better.  So let's get off
the posing and resume being hackers -- please dig into it -- I predict
you'll come to dig it.  We'll find a way to solve the funding problems
as we go along.

Regards,
-t



And, true to form, here's the vitriol


       When one or both get to the stage that they are serious
       contenders to replace cvs, then I'd like someone whose
       judgement I trust (it could be me, I guess) to evaluate both.


The situation is more complicated than that.

`arch', unless something changes, will _not_ reach that stage.  In
spite of your protests, I think you are in a position to help fix
that.

`arch' _could_ reach that stage, for less money than svn by my
estimation, and producing a far better end result (that is much
needed).  And this is fairly easy to determine, if you look into it in
reasonable depth.

So I must, unfortunately, ask people such as you to put their
momentary convenience aside, and do a little planning and looking
ahead in this area.  Is not GCC engineering process a legitimate
concern of the SC?


    But until then, I think it is premature or either myself or the
    gcc steering committee to spend much time evaluating them (unless
    personally interested, of course).

If you stick to that, you are doing the community, the market, and the
free software movement a disservice.   Surely planning is an important
function of the SC.  Surely you recognize that effective
(i.e. proactive, positively consequentlal) planning is important at
this juncture.


     Convincing me won't really help you or arch.  I'm not an opinion-maker
     in the [presumably relevant part of] Free Software world.  

Hopefully this is false, given your SC membership.  If it is not, then
I think it is time to ask some questions about what your duty as an SC
member is -- and about the role of the SC overall.
     


     If I were, I'd be rich from Kawa - which a very few people rave
     about.

Surely you aren't asking for a project-endorsement quid-pro-quo.
Actually, not "surely" at all -- one can see such q-p-q's operational
elsewhere -- so why not here, eh?

Really, I can't begin to fathom how Kawa enters into this discussion
at all, unless as a possible implementation language for an `arch'.

In general, your modern western euro royalist approach to SC duties
("deserving infinite deference, yet responsible for nothing") is, to
put it lightly, disheartening.

Regards,
-t