This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>
- Cc: Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com, bonzini at gnu dot org, dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com, dberlin at dberlin dot org, dje dot gcc at gmail dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, law at redhat dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com, rguenther at suse dot de, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:23:45 -0500
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.com> <49C58A77.3000805@codesourcery.com> <4aca3dc20903211937k29299a7co9bf4add50a050f71@mail.gmail.com> <20090322050024.GA18893@synopsys.com> <4aca3dc20903220547v8923d55v9ac593f8400be6a9@mail.gmail.com> <10903221258.AA04666@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220718oefa452ek60dcc1d933e1e093@mail.gmail.com> <10903221441.AA05218@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220808w4c04c0e9g74b25a55ea3d8b42@mail.gmail.com> <10903221517.AA05569@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Richard Kenner
<kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>> but FSF still owned the copyright of the codes of EGCS; so it wasn't
>> reuniting with FSF interfering with technical decisions.
>
> I don't follow. ?There's a difference between working on code whose
> copyright is held by the FSF and working as part of an FSF-endorsed
> project.
>
>> At the time, nobody explained that the SC concluded the EGCS
>> experience was a failure and therefore the EGCS community
>> should surrender and abandon the very reasons it emerged.
>
> No, indeed the opposite occured: it was concluded that the EGCS experience
> was a SUCCESS and that the FSF should use that model for its future
> development of GCC.
It appears we are currently not using that model.
During EGCS lifetine, I do not remember we got to this situation
where FSF had to disruptively interfere with development
(whether on branch or not.)
>
>> It was my understanding that it was a compromise, but the
>> EGCS community retains all rights to make technical
>> decisions without disruptive interferences from FSF
>
> Your understanding is incorrect. ?Independence from the FSF was never an
> issue.
So, are you now suggesting that technical decisions where not the
sole domain of GCC developers? That contradicts the conventional
understanding we have taken on the issue in the past.
-- Gaby