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: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Kenner <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, bonzini at gnu dot org, Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com, dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com, dje dot gcc at gmail dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net, mark at codesourcery dot com, rguenther at suse dot de, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:01:36 -0400
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.com> <206fcf960903220718oefa452ek60dcc1d933e1e093@mail.gmail.com> <10903221441.AA05218@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220808w4c04c0e9g74b25a55ea3d8b42@mail.gmail.com> <10903221517.AA05569@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220823s6fe866fdja8c96e60bb3c432c@mail.gmail.com> <10903221537.AA05719@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <f865508f0903220838m55e7408fmd4ee68e84c6a8f5b@mail.gmail.com> <10903221604.AA05881@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <49C6C01A.2060900@redhat.com>
On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> Richard Kenner wrote:
>>>
>>> Of course, just I (and others) don't see why they should do it in this
>>> case. ?Delaying a *branch* is different from, say, using a proprietary
>>> version control or bug tracking system.
>>>
>>
>> I don't either. ?Requesting a delay of a *release* on a license issue
>> is completely and perfectly understandable, but what that has to do
>> with making a *branch* makes absolutely no sense to me.
>>
>
> Agreed. ?I'll note nobody has really argued that delaying a branch to deal
> with a license issue makes any sense. ?The FSF itself hasn't even stated
> reasons for their stance. ?That may simply be because the issue is expected
> to be moot after the weekend meetings.
>
> What I find most distressing about this whole discussion is the fact that we
> have developers who don't seem to grasp that the FSF owns the copyright to
> GCC and we are effectively volunteering to work in the FSF's sandbox under
> certain rules and guidelines set forth by the FSF.
Maybe this is because every piece of documentation on the GCC project
says otherwise?