From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12885 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2004 00:21:38 -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 12809 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2004 00:21:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2004 00:21:32 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A57CFF2DC5; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:21:31 -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 10437-01-5; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:21:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from gnat.com (hoosic.gnat.com [205.232.38.102]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5972CF2DC3; Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:21:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4064C90C.8000206@gnat.com> Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:21:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040316 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> <4062E6E1.2070605@gnat.com> <4062F5DA.10708@gnat.com> 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/msg00692.txt.bz2 Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Richard Kenner took specific actions which had every appearance of > conflict between the demands of being gcc maintainer and the demands > of being an employee of Ada Core Technologies. You say that these > actions had nothing to do with Ada. My response is that it sure > looked like they had everything to do with Ada. I am telling you the facts, based on talking to Richard nearly every day in the period both before and after AdaCore was founded. > I can't read anybody's mind. Indeed! I suggest not trying. Especially when your uninformed attempts to do so come out as inappropriate personal attacks. > Richard Kenner did not make those kinds of statements. Well what are you saying? Are you saying that Richard's work on Ada took away some time from volunteer work on maintaining GCC? Perhaps, but all of us have day jobs! In fact Richard's main activity at AdaCore was always to work on GCC maintenance. Are you saying that Richard's technical decisions were influenced inappropriately by his work on GNAT? If so, then that's what seems to be to me in the category of inappropriate personal attacks. It is most certainly true that Richard is *VERY* particular on what he considers acceptable changes, both from a point of view of technical content and documentation. Believe me, the others at Ada Core have had to deal with this ourselves :-) > I'll add that I'm now sorry that I brought up this ancient history. > It can't lead to anything good. True. > I apologize. I'll try to stop talking about it. Sounds like a good idea, especially when your knowledge is limited. > > I'll also add that being a GNU maintainer is an inherently political > position. Technical skill is a big part of it, but it is not the only > part. People with no political skills are risky choices as GNU > maintainers. You don't really mean political skills, though I note the tendency of technical people to divide all the world up into the technical aznd political. Really what you mean is skill in dealing with other people, and yes, of course this is most certainly true.