Ada mainline

[Paul Koning]

>>>>> "D" == D Starner <shalesller@writeme.com> writes:

 >> In fact if you want to look at any of the front end patches, and
 >> if you *do* know the Ada standard (and relevant AI's) well, you
 >> should find them quite easy to understand, since they are very
 >> well documented. However, the group of people that meet this
 >> criterion is small (and most of them work for AdaCore, and most of
 >> the rest work for AdaCore's competitors :-)

 D> I get the impression that ACT feels that no one else wants to work
 D> on GNAT, that no one is capable of working on GNAT without all of
 D> ACT's proprietary test suites and everything, and that the
 D> concerns and problems of users who don't have a contract with ACT
 D> are without interest. I'm certainly not motivated to start working
 D> on GNAT, given that ACT is likely to be reviewing my patches. 

I had a similar reaction. 

I'll just speak up one time, as an occasional GCC contributor not all
that skilled yet in the broader GCC.

My reading of the arguments for the Ada unique process is "there are
only three people who care about this stuff anyway, so why follow the
standard process".

This is a self-fulfilling argument.  By operating a closed process,
you exclude the possibility of others becoming involved.  Conversely,
by changing to the standard open process, the number of interested and
qualified people will probably grow over time, which is to everyone's
benefit. 

	 paul