This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?
- To: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
- Subject: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>
- Date: 01 Nov 2000 23:02:53 -0500
- Cc: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>, kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu, rth at cygnus dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, law at redhat dot com, rms at gnu dot org
- References: <20001102025351.6992434DAF@nile.gnat.com><3A00E193.8B046C69@apple.com>
Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com> writes:
> Robert Dewar wrote:
> >
> > <<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. Same thing for gdb5, this
> > was kept under wraps for a long time. A large company (I won't name names)
> > that we worked with was essentially operating as though it were under
> > non-disclosure. Both the ia64 port and gdb5 were sudden massive updates,
> > and it is hard to see how else it could have been done.
>
> The GDB 5 changes were basically the last gasp of the old way of
> working on GDB. Since we didn't think anybody else cared what we
> did with GDB internals, the reasoning went that there wasn't much
> point in posting a lot of information externally, since the developers
> involved were on Cygnus' internal mailing lists, and the discussion
> happened there. In retrospect, it meant that we missed out on input
> from other people who've since become valuable contributors to the
> open process, so I wouldn't recommend to anybody that they go the
> closed way again, at least for general architectural improvements.
>
I still don't get what massive gdb 5 changes were done so amazingly privately,
unless the changelogs are wrong or misleading me. They probably are misleading.
I was only submitting C++ patches and a few general improvements at
the time.
I know GDB development wasn't exactly open, but since about january of
2000, everything seemed to being done in the open, which is months
before gdb 5 even branched.
--Dan