GCC association with the FSF

[Thomas Koenig]

On 14.04.21 09:57, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 08:46, Thomas Koenig via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>> There is no discussion at the moment. Most people on the fortran
>> mailing list do not follow gcc.  I know of at least two contributors
>> (myself incluced) who would in all probability stop contributing
>> in that case.
> 
> Do you mind if I ask why?
> 
> (I totally understand that you'd rather not have this topic spill over
> onto the gfortran list, so I'm only asking why you'd stop contributing
> if there were two active forks of GCC, not anybody else).

Because I am not willing to donate my time and effort for a doomed
project, and if that split happens, I consider gfortran doomed
for good.

Let's look at

- All gfortran developers stay on the FSF branch.
   Bug fixing goes on as usual, the other branch picks up whatever
   it wants.  This I could see as working, sort
   of.  If the FSF and the other branch diverge in their middle
   end interface, or if the other branch decides not to port something,
   this is bit rot that the maintainers of the other branch
   would have to deal with.  So, gfortran bitrots on the new
   branch, basically.  The question then is if the FSF branch
   will still be the relevant one the future.  If not, gfortran
   will then die a lingering death.

- gfortran developers try to work on both branches, or have
   one primary branch and one other branch.  Dealing with two
   versions is far too much for our resources, we can hardly
   keep up with one.  This is a recipe for disaster, and
   I will not spend my volunteer time on this.

- Some gfortran developers decide to move to the other branch,
   cross-porting fixes if necessary.  This will also lead
   to fewer resources of a project that has already too few,
   and is not sustainable.

- All gfortran developers move to the new branch.  This will not
   happen, I can guarantee you that.

- Somebody decides that hiring a couple of professional programmers
   working full-time keeping the project alive on both sides.
   That has not happened in decades (gfortran has always been
   mostly volunteer-driven), and I consider that extremely
   unlikely.

So, let me modify my statement: It only makes sense for me to
continue working on gfortran if the branch fails.  In that case,
the maxim usually employed by pharmaceutical R&D applies:
"Fail early, fail cheap", and the cheapest way to fail is
never to start.