This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc branches?
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 11:08:22PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:
> > [From what I hear] the "engineering" [in `arch']
> > is lacking.
>
> Yes, well, bullshit rumours are like that.
>
> Ask some serious questions or read the `arch' source code. I'll be
> happy to help with your evaluation because I am confident that if you
> are not foolish about it, I'll "win".
This is why I distrust arch; I distrust the mentality of the authors
behind it. Anyone who says, "certainly, let's discuss it, and if you aren't
stupid, you'll agree with me," is too arrogant to be bothered to work with.
> I can also help a little bit by providing some critical perspective
> about svn.
So, you're qualified to dispense criticism of /other/ tools, but criticism
of /your/ tool is "bullshit rumor".
Sorry, Tom. You aren't going to convince me to stop working on GCC and
work on arch instead; I don't have the time or the interest.
I'm pleased with the leadership provided by the SC; they take a light
touch in a community of volunteers. If I came home from work, sat down to
do some volunteer hacking, and was ordered by an arrogant, heavy-handed,
"you must focus on project <foo> now or else" SC, I would cordially invite
them to perform a certain anitomical impossibility, and take my resources
elsewhere. I don't believe the SC have the time or the interest to hack
arch code either. No do they have secret caches of funding.
I'm still trying to figure out what exactly -- concrete suggestions, now --
what exactly you want us to do, given the constraints of a) no extra time,
and b) no money.
Phil
--
I would therefore like to posit that computing's central challenge, viz. "How
not to make a mess of it," has /not/ been met.
- Edsger Dijkstra, 1930-2002