Reenabling Ada by default

[Phil Edwards]

On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 09:31:17PM -0400, Richard Kenner wrote:
>     For sure, the *only* reason why I learnt GCC enough to submit patches
>     and have them approved is because there was a public gcc-patches list.
> 
> I'm missing your point.  Nobody has suggested taking the Ada patches off
> the gcc-patches list.

<grumble> Ya might as well, they contain no useful explanations or
descriptions.  The body of the patch itself can be extracted from CVS by
someone looking backwards in time.  Correct patches /also/ have explanatory
text that's even more useful to the hypothetical researcher.

I spend a lot of time reading back through gcc-patches, looking for the
discussion that surrounds a change.  Mega-merge patches once a week don't
tell me a damn thing.  Single fixes with "we found a bug, this makes it
better" don't tell me a damn thing.  Why you're magically exempt from
the rule that People Applying Patches Shall Explain What The Hell They're
Doing is beyond me.

</grumble>

-- 
Behind everything some further thing is found, forever; thus the tree behind
the bird, stone beneath soil, the sun behind Urth.  Behind our efforts, let
there be found our efforts.
              - Ascian saying, as related by Loyal to the Group of Seventeen