Why not gnat Ada in gcc?

[Chris G. Demetriou]

Gah, accidentially sent the message below to gcc-patches, when i meant
to send it to gcc.  *sigh*  Guess my fingers are too used to typing
gcc-patches.  Sorry about that.

cgd@sibyte.com (Chris G. Demetriou) writes:

> 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-)