This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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]

Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?


dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> <<You're working on free software for the fsf, therefore IMO you ought
> to be doing your development in the open if at all possible.  And
> clearly (as Cygnus nee Red Hat and Codesourcery demonstrate) it is
> not only possible, but not particularly difficult.
> >>
> 
> Actually from past experiences recently, e.g. with the ia64 port, I have
> been struck by how closed the development was.  [ ... ]

Eh; development happens in private, patches get submitted, then
they're public.  I think the point is, _everybody_ can do private
development and submit patches to the public tree and have them
included into the public tree.

Where that breaks down -- and does leave me with a feeling of at least
somewhat-closed development -- is that it can often times take
_months_ if not longer for a 'random' third party's (tested) patch to
be approved and integrated...

I recognize that people who read these lists and integrate patches do
so basically as volunteers, and can't fault them for their lack of
time to do so if that's what slows acceptances down.  However, the end
result is that there seems to be effectively two classes of patch
submitters: those on the inside, who get their patches approved
relatively quickly (or do it themselves, because they have the
reputation and authority to do so); and those on the outside who have
to wait who knows how long.


cgd
(Not speaking for SiByte, of course.  8-)

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