This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Patch pinging


On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
> NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> It's not just present on "social community" sites. ?Look at the
>> entirety of sourceforge. ?That's quite a large respository of free
>> software, and yet it consists 100% of fake-named people (and please
>> understand what I mean by that.) ?It's even a place where projects get
>> tons of donations, and yet these people are completely anonymous.
>> I've received donations myself through SF, even from not just one, but
>> several very large corporations -- one of which you wouldn't believe
>> if I showed you the proof.
>
> It is quite true that gcc operates by different rules. ?We've
> established that you can contribute patches to gcc under a pseudonym,
> but the FSF does require that you reveal your name to them. ?The FSF
> requirements are widely recognized as an obstacle to contributing to
> gcc. ?However, there are good reasons for requiring a paper trail, and
> those reasons are based on events that actually happened, not merely on
> theory. ?I would like to change things too, but, because of that
> history, saying "other projects do it this way" is not a sufficient
> argument for change.
>
> Ian
>

Maybe there's a way to look at how other projects handle the same
issue, and find a different solution that's more workable for more
people.  I don't know what event you are specifically referring to in
the GCC history that created this situation, but I don't think it's
unreasonable to think that there'd be an alternate method of achieving
the same results.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]