Re: GCC2 merging (was "native language support now available")

[David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>]

>>>>> Richard Stallman writes:

> Perhaps it's time to drop the "experimental", which was only
> ever really a polite fiction.

Richard> When Gumby told me about his intention to start another branch in GCC
Richard> development.  I objected that it was likely to result in a permanent
Richard> fork.  He made a promise to the GNU project that he would prevent
Richard> this, by designating the new branch for experimental use only.  The
Richard> word "experimental" was put in the name in order to inform the public
Richard> of this.

Richard> As a factual matter, this promise has not been kept.

Richard> You're saying that this promise was a deliberate lie from the
Richard> beginning.  I don't know if you're right, but I see you enjoy thinking
Richard> so.

Richard> Do you really have so little respect for the GNU project that you
Richard> smile at the idea of making a dishonest promise to it?

	There is a difference between a polite fiction because people
intentionally were misleading and made a commitment in bad faith versus a
fiction because it has been impossible to implement the agreement.

	I and the EGCS people with whom I regularly interract made the
promise in good faith and have tried to work in good faith.  I may not
have liked it, but I agreed to it and have been working to uphold it.  I
was leery that GCC2 would work to incorporate the experimental work in a
timely fashion, and my concerns seem to have been justified.  That is my
perspective and you obviously view the situation differently.

David