repository [was: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc?]

[Geoff Keating]

Hi Richard,

Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:

> But it is unreasonable to ask ACT to put its repository onto a machine
> run by Cygnus, and associated by the public with Cygnus.  If we want
> to say to ACT that using the GCC repository is the only right thing to
> do, we need to move the GCC repository to a neutral GNU site first.

* It wasn't well publicised, but Cygnus Solutions merged with Red Hat,
Inc., on July 1 of 2000.  The name of the merged company is Red Hat,
Inc., and so it is no longer appropriate to speak of 'Cygnus', as
it no longer exists as a separate entity.

* It is also not correct to say that the machine `sourceware.cygnus.com'
(aka sources.redhat.com and gcc.gnu.org) is `run by Red Hat' (or
Cygnus).  It's currently administered by a group of people, who are
all Red Hat employees, but do not generally administer it in their
capacity as a Red Hat employee; as an example, the on-site
administrator is neither a member of the main Red Hat I/S organization
nor the Red Hat Engineering Services I/S organization, but is
currently a staff engineer.  Many of the other admins are doing it in
their capacity as FSF project maintainers or steering committee
members, which is a personal capacity not part of their employment.

It (the machine and the network connection) is _funded_ by Red Hat,
but this is of course not the same thing.

* I question as to whether any "neutral GNU site"s exist with
the capacity to provide such a service.  I don't believe the FSF has
the resources or competence by itself; the other obvious candidate
would be sourceforge, but they are "associated by the public" with VA
Linux, and according to their web site the admins' salaries are paid
by VA Linux: "VA Linux Systems now pays our salary to offer you these
services."

* Finally, I'm not sure you're asking the right question.  You said
"put its repository...".  I would never ask this of anyone, as I would
expect that ACT has information in its repository, for instance in
checkin messages, which is confidential, or private, or was not
intended to be released.  Instead, the request is that ACT take their
current tree, as they would ship it to a nonspecific customer, and
check it in, so that the only information released is that encoded in
the GPLed sources.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>