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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Rubin Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Studying and Maintaining GNAT, Is There Any Interest in a New Group? Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 16:16:54 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: <8736v2f34p.fsf@nightsong.com> References: <309225242.556906218.575482.laguest-archeia.com@nntp.aioe.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b8d821c486dcf738a8f7584bbb7826a6"; logging-data="23041"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tG28tMfWYeNP3SxZcgX1k" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:2/PYlQ4fjVAI3vrMMaxstchamKU= sha1:ymIp68W7VRXQ5DYMcxldj/JBPao= Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:54258 Date: 2018-08-25T16:16:54-07:00 List-Id: Simon Wright writes: > I'm far from expert on GCC procedures, but all three of the Ada > front-end maintainers (see [1]) are AdaCore employees, and I don't think > you're going to get approval for updates to Ada internals from anyone > else. Unless you've got some particular reason to believe that (e.g. based on experience submitting patches), I tend to be skeptical. Most FOSS projects love getting good patches (patches that work, are tested, conform to the project's standards and interfaces, etc.) What they don't like is "homework assignments", i.e. someone else coming along and telling them to do some work (unless they are a paying customer of course). I haven't been involved with GNAT at all, but I've contributed to GCC and have found the maintainers to generally be receptive to patches where the submitter is the one who does the work, and they're at least somewhat willing to advise about what work is needed. What they don't want is "please implement feature X" or even "here is my crappy patch, please clean it up, test it, rework it so it fits the rest of the codebase, etc., all for free". That's what support contracts are for. When it's a clean patch that really improves things and includes all necessary documentation and tests, it is usually smooth sailing.