Conerned about lack of detail in ChangeLog/commit messges

[Mike Stump]

> Date: Sat, 17 Jun 00 11:53:35 EDT
> From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
> To: martin@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de
> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org

> I have heard many motivations for the start of the egcs project, but
> the one above is new to me: I was not aware of any legitimate
> developer or tester who had problems getting to GCC development
> sources at any point.

This is ancient history now...  but I've heard of it.  There was no
public web page that was widely talked about that told a random tester
(a new tester) that exact instructions for grabbing the source,
exactly where the sources were and so on.  Even if I am wrong on this
point, it proves my point, if I didn't know, how could anyone else
know?  gcc sources are now mirrored on 52 mirrors around the world.
Part of availability, is _high_ availability.  The instructions are
public, and published on a public web site.  This is also rather new.

We can see your attitude in the phrase `I am not aware of any
legitimate development or tester'. The question is who decides what is
legitimate?

See The Cathedral and the Bazaar,
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar , for a far more
in-depth treatment of the subject.

One last parting shot, remember, perception isn't your perception, but
rather, everyone else's.