Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin <at> dberlin.org>
Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.devel
Date: Friday 20th March 2009 13:34:59 UTC (over 8 years ago)
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Joe Buck  wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:25:34AM -0700, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> The topmost sentence should be unambiguous.  Yes, the SC asked us not
>> to branch.
>
> The request came from RMS, the SC just passed it on.
>
There are two things here that bother me.

1. The occasional defending on the length of time it takes the FSF to
get back to us.  Sorry, but this defense is, honestly, fairly silly.
Even the government agencies I work with aren't  this slow.  By the
time we have a response, members of the  GCC developer community may
well be living on the moon.  This doesn't mean they aren't good people
trying to do a good job, or seriously overworked.  At some point, this
ceases to be a sane reason for something taking so long, and clearly,
it isn't something we should let affect our development schedule.

2. Where is the pushback by the SC onto the FSF?
Why haven't we given them a hard deadline, or even any deadline at all?
It's clear when they have no deadlines, they take forever to get
anything done. After all, if they are allowed to not prioritize it and
have no incentive to get their ass in gear and meet a deadline, what
exactly did we expect to happen other than it not getting done in a
reasonable amount of time?

Why hasn't the SC sent something to the FSF like:

"We are grateful for your concern about the issues this licensing
change and subsequent discussion has brought up.  However, sadly, the
amount of time it is taking to reach consensus on how/what to change
has begun to seriously impede GCC development and it's future.
Therefore, we request you resolve this licensing issue by March 28th,
or we will have to branch and prepare the current GCC mainline for
release, and wait until the next version to make any licensing
changes.
We regret this, but it is necessary in order to not further impede
development of GCC and it's community"

It's fairly clear what the view of the developer community is on this
issue.  At some point, if the FSF can't be a  organization that
responds to problems in a sane length of time, we shouldn't let them
get in the way.

--Dan
 
CD: 3ms