Re: GCC 3.5 "integration branch"

[Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>]

David Edelsohn <edelsohn@gnu.org> writes:

> We feel that the unauthorized creation of an "integration branch" for 3.5,

I object in the strongest possible terms to this statement.  The
creation of the branch was not unauthorized.  My authority was
<http://gcc.gnu.org/cvswrite.html>, which clearly states:

> Free for all
> 
> The following changes can be made by everyone with CVS write access:
> ...
> Creating and using a branch for development, including outside the
> parts of the compiler one maintains, provided that changes on the
> branch have copyright assignments on file. Merging such developments
> back to the mainline still needs approval in the usual way.

This paragraph was written by Joseph Meyers following a statement by
Mark Mitchell, and was then approved by Mark Mitchell.

I demand that the SC promptly correct the false and personally hurtful
statement it made.

> This was especially unfortunate when objections to the "integration
> branch" proposal, solicited by a developer, were ignored.

I would like to make it clear that no objections were ignored.  Each
comment was considered, but there was no proposed alternative course
of action that fixed the problems I described.

Indeed, I saw one alternative course of action proposed, by Mark
Mitchell, and it at best partially addressed only one of the three
problems.

> While the GNU GCC Project encourages development branches, primary GNU
> GCC development branches are the responsibility of the GCC SC and RM.

I would also like to make it clear that I did not intend this branch
to be the responsibity of the GCC SC, or of the RM; I believe I made
it quite clear that it would be my responsibility.  Nor did I intend
that this would be a 'primary GNU GCC development branch' by the
dictionary definition.  I designed the rules for the branch to ensure
that this branch was clearly secondary to the trunk.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>