From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16742 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2002 06:43:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16540 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2002 06:43:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO morrowfield.home) (67.218.141.53) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 06:43:45 -0000 Received: (from lord@localhost) by morrowfield.home (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA04464; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:44:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lord@morrowfield.home) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 22:43:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200203270644.WAA04464@morrowfield.home> From: Tom Lord To: eliz@is.elta.co.il CC: tim@hollebeek.com, dje@watson.ibm.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: (message from Eli Zaretskii on Wed, 27 Mar 2002 08:21:04 +0200 (IST)) Subject: Re: gcc development schedule [Re: sharing libcpp between GDB and GCC] References: X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00271.txt.bz2 From: Eli Zaretskii On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Tim Hollebeek wrote: > > The approach I am suggesting is an evolutionary step beyond > > the current practices and is quite consistent with the SC > > development goals. > > The SC can and will be the judge of that. Until then, please make > sure that your contributions to gcc meet or exceed your contributions > to this list. Sigh. Another attempt to shut up discenting opinions instead of dealing with them in a civilized and technical manner. Thanks. May I add a few points? 1) It's no secret that I'm not a core maintainer of GCC. I have done some GCC hacking and ran into some practical obstacles while looking for ways to see that work wind up in GCC distributions. Some of the invective I get in private mail (or in Eli's message) seems to suggest that unless you've done 10 ports, have write access, or otherwise have a suitable GCC-testosterone certificate that, well, you're a valid target for complete disregard or worse. 2) I do have a pretty decent amount of experience in software tools, process automation, and related software engineering issues. I have a pretty decent amount experience in the Free Software and open source worlds. These are areas I think a lot about and build tools for. I'm really not talking through my hat here. 3) I've had some chats with a few maintainers and SC members via email. They've corrected me on a few of my perceptions of the current processes (as I asked them to). They've remarked that some of my ideas seem like good ones, though overall there's a lot of hesitancy to embrace any idea that people don't see immediately how to pay for. I have detected in SC member comments, both privately and on the list, insidious conflict-of-interest issues at work: it's not where I want to focus on this list because I think people's intentions are rightly oriented -- but there _is_ a structural problem with how the project is run, having both tool and political components. 4) There is a history, in the GCC/egcs schizm, of people identifying practical needs of the project and that turning into improvements in project governance, process, infrastructure, and relation to commercial activities. So it really isn't even naive to raise some pretty well understood process issues in hopes that the engineers can lead the market in this area. 5) The GCC project is larger now than just a few years ago, and vastly more important to the entire Free Software and open source worlds. This is a critical structural element. It deserves careful attention and input from multiple perspectives. -t (And I'll leave gdb on the CC line since these issues are broader in scope than just GCC.)