[maint] Drop sim/mips maintainership

[maint] Drop sim/mips maintainership

[Andrew Cagney]

Chris,

I'm about to start submitting a very large number of MIPS simulators. 
One is called the `r5900'.  Given the clear conflict of interest here 
(RHAT vs FSF) I'd rather drop MIPS maintenance and, instead, submit this 
as a normal developer (I should really drop MIPS maintenance anyway, but 
now is a good oportunity :-).

(yes, must remember to transfer the remaining (C) files as well).

Andrew

Re: [maint] Drop sim/mips maintainership

[cgd]

At Thu, 20 Feb 2003 04:04:59 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew Cagney" wrote:
> Chris,

"Uh oh..."


> I'm about to start submitting a very large number of MIPS simulators. 
> One is called the `r5900'.  Given the clear conflict of interest here 
> (RHAT vs FSF) I'd rather drop MIPS maintenance and, instead, submit this 
> as a normal developer

Obviously, if you think you have cause for concern about conflict of
interest, best that you do what you feel is appropriate.

However, this makes me wonder: do you think _I_ should feel concerned
about conflict of interest regarding contributing/merging SB-1 and
related simulator changes?  If so, well, who's left maintaining the
MIPS sim?  8-)

I think it's quite appropriate for the maintainer to be an active
developer (and contributor), with an interest in making the simulator
better and more featureful, FWIW.


> (I should really drop MIPS maintenance anyway, but 
> now is a good oportunity :-).

*sigh*  you have much more experience than I, obviously, so this is a
loss, but I understand that you're probably over-stretched.


> (yes, must remember to transfer the remaining (C) files as well).

yes!  8-)



chris

Re: [maint] Drop sim/mips maintainership

[Andrew Cagney]

> At Thu, 20 Feb 2003 04:04:59 +0000 (UTC), "Andrew Cagney" wrote:
> 
>> Chris,
> 
> 
> "Uh oh..."
> 
> 
> 
>> I'm about to start submitting a very large number of MIPS simulators. 
>> One is called the `r5900'.  Given the clear conflict of interest here 
>> (RHAT vs FSF) I'd rather drop MIPS maintenance and, instead, submit this 
>> as a normal developer
> 
> 
> Obviously, if you think you have cause for concern about conflict of
> interest, best that you do what you feel is appropriate.
> 
> However, this makes me wonder: do you think _I_ should feel concerned
> about conflict of interest regarding contributing/merging SB-1 and
> related simulator changes?  If so, well, who's left maintaining the
> MIPS sim?  8-)
> 
> I think it's quite appropriate for the maintainer to be an active
> developer (and contributor), with an interest in making the simulator
> better and more featureful, FWIW.

But you're not about to try and simulateneously `merge' ten CPU variants:

:model:::mips32:mipsisa32:
:model:::mips64:mipsisa64:
:model:::r5900:mips5900:
:model:::r7900:mips7900:
:model:::r3900:mips3900:
:model:::tx19:tx19:
:model:::vr4120:mips4120:
:model:::vr5400:mips5400:
:model:::vr5500:mips5500:
:model:::mdmx:mdmx:
:model:::r4900:mips4900:
:model:::xxxx:mipsYYYY (still waiting on this one ...).

Er, wow, make that 12!  This is the equvalent of a fork and jumbo patch :-(

A for-profit center will try to eliminate their fork for the lowest 
possible cost (i.e., s/old/new/).  Typically that isn't in the best 
interest of the FSF's code base.  Hence the potential for conflict.

>> (I should really drop MIPS maintenance anyway, but 
>> now is a good oportunity :-).
> 
> 
> *sigh*  you have much more experience than I, obviously, so this is a
> loss, but I understand that you're probably over-stretched.

Ah, but you can now re-tag stuff the way you want :-)

More seriously, I'm not contributing to that code base so I might as 
well get out of the way.  I'm definitly still around for questions and 
will certainly hand out [bad] advice, however, I shouldn't be the one 
making the final decision.

Andrew