Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: Joe Buck <Joe.Buck <at> synopsys.COM>
Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.devel
Date: Friday 20th March 2009 16:58:58 UTC (over 8 years ago)
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Daniel Berlin 
wrote:
> >> Okay then, as the leadership body of the GCC community, part of your
> >> responsibility is keeping your constituents (the rest of us!) informed
> >> of the status of things troubling them.
> >> I don't believe saying "we have given the FSF a deadline to meet in
> >> the near future" would at all endanger any diplomacy, and i'd love to
> >> see a counter argument that says otherwise.

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:09 PM, David Edelsohn  wrote:
> > I am sorry that you did not receive the memo.

On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:45:40AM -0700, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> This is a fairly rude response for something that has been a
> consistent problem for GCC developers (lack of status updates from the
> SC on issues important to GCC developers).

I agree that David's response comes off sounding rude.  We're
all frustrated, but still ...

> I've said my piece. It's fairly obvious the SC has no plans to change
> (they have no incentive to).

Actually, I'd like to change it; many members of the SC (Toon in
particular, I think) are quite frustrated.  And David is speaking
here for himself only, not the SC.

The problem in this instance is that the SC has little power; it's
the FSF that's holding things up and I don't know more than you do.
 
CD: 3ms