From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15619 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2004 14:04:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15480 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2004 14:04:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2004 14:04:20 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4275DF283D; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:04:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 08517-01-3; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:04:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from gnat.com (hoosic.gnat.com [205.232.38.102]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91587F283E; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 09:04:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4062E6E1.2070605@gnat.com> Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:04:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Lance Taylor Cc: Bob Rossi , gdbheads@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [Gdbheads] A small patch case study, -file-list-exec-source-files References: <16456.65451.461753.66554@localhost.redhat.com> <20040306155700.GA9439@white> <20040311132508.GA2504@white> <20040323130900.GA17339@white> <40605C9F.2050700@gnat.com> <20040325043648.GA20454@white> <20040325055925.GS1104@gnat.com> <406279E4.3090903@gnat.com> <20040325124313.GA21101@white> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nile.gnat.com X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00610.txt.bz2 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Robert, it's interesting to read your comments in light of the history > of the gcc/egcs split. After all, Richard Kenner worked for GNAT at > the time, and I believe that you did too. In my opinion, Kenner > expressed the attitude which you express--in his case, stability for > Ada was the preeminent goal. I think that attitude was a significant > root cause of the gcc/egcs split. I think that tends to prove my > earlier point in an extreme case: if you don't make an effort to > encourage your volunteers, you lose them. If you want to prove your point by history, make sure you know the history. First GNAT is a product, no one works for it. Second, the company is AdaCore Technologies, I am CEO, Richard is Treasurer :-) so the past tense is bizarre :-) Third, at the time of the gcc/egcs split, Ada was simply not a factor and had nothing whatever to do with the events.