From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: card@bbj.freenix.fr (Remy Card) Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/09/06 Message-ID: <5uqh3g$1to$1@bbj.freenix.fr>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270153602 References: <5u93bu$5cj$1@news.nyu.edu> <5uoso1$cj5$1@news.nyu.edu> Supersedes: <5uqh0k$1tk$1@bbj.freenix.fr> Organization: A poor lonesome Usenet site Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Originator: card@bbj.freenix.fr (Remy Card) Date: 1997-09-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: [Please do not send me any copy when replying in mailing lists or in newsgroups!] In article <5uoso1$cj5$1@news.nyu.edu>, Richard Kenner wrote: >EGCS is not meant to directly produce anything for "the public", but to >debug/improve experimental changes and pass them into the GCC >development stream. Well, I find quite interesting that a project that is not supposed to "directly produce anything for the public" allows us to get snapshots (and maybe releases) of their compiler. I know that I take risks by getting and using these snapshots, but I certainly appreciate to be able to use them. I'd like to see such an open development scheme for gcc. >I don't follow g++ development, so I don't understand the reference to >"working templates", but the same folks who set up egcs have total >control over the g++ part of the released GCC, so they don't need to >set up any separate project to get anything "to the public". Hmmm, when I read the "Tired of waiting..." thread, I got the impression that people working on the g++ part were quite frustrated that a new release of gcc/g++ did not happen, because they had much a better c++ compiler and they had to wait for the FSF gcc maintainers to say "Ok, it's time to release a new version of gcc/g++", even if they got reports for bugs that they had fixed one year ago... > [snip, snip, ...] >The basic idea is that if a proposed change is in good enough shape that it >can be gotten ready in, at most, a month or two, it goes directly into the >GCC development tree and will appear in the next release within a few ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >months. ^^^^^^ Are you kidding? Can you seriously say "a few months" when the last release of GCC is 2 years old? :-) I don't know anything about compilers, but I like how egcs is developped and made available to testers on a regular basis. If the egcs developpers happen to have a version that is stable enough to be available as a release, I will certainly use it and not use the FSF gcc anymore. Remy P.S: Remember Emacs/Xemacs?