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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2e91a32061bde112 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Florian Weimer Subject: Re: JAVA and ADA JGNAT Date: 2000/01/26 Message-ID: <87n1pswjz0.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 578263905 References: <862sv5$sug$1@pirates.Armstrong.EDU> <862t3o$9aa1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <86k8r6$alp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86kpbu$aik1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <86la8r$519$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <877lgxuquu.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org> <86mqi6$6dd$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Mail-Copies-To: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@cygnus.argh.org X-Trace: deneb.cygnus.argh.org 948925411 2456 192.168.1.2 (26 Jan 2000 22:23:31 GMT) Organization: Penguin on board User-Agent: Gnus/5.0804 (Gnus v5.8.4) Emacs/20.4 Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: Florian Weimer NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Jan 2000 22:23:31 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-01-26T22:23:31+00:00 List-Id: Jean-Marc Bourguet writes: > In article <877lgxuquu.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org>, > Florian Weimer wrote: > > Robert Dewar writes: > > > > > Actually I think part of what goes on here is that ACT is > > > *more* open than a lot of the Linux and GCC development. I've misread this statement, I think. The explanation by Robert Dewar that followed but which I neglected to quote made it quite clear that he meant that most of the code Cygnus develops for their customers never makes it into the public GCC version, and this seems to be true. On the other hand, the development process of the *public* GCC version hosted by Cygnus is much more open than the GNAT development process. When I posted my reply, I was focused on this one, I think. > > In the past, I've struggled with several GNAT bugs although they had > > already been fixed in ACT's internal version. > > And how many bugs have you not struggled with because the quality > control of ACT is better that what it is possible to do with a > more open development? To be honest: I don't know. That's the reason why I was very careful not to give any advice to anyone on how to structure their development process. I only was irritated by Robert Dewar's statement of the openness of ACT because I confused the development process with the result. > Open development has a cost (beeing able to get the same quality > is one, there are other). Yes, that's certainly true. Given the size of the free software Ada community, it's probably better to invest manpower in actual GNAT development than to support a potential bazaar directly at ACT by maintaining a CVS repository and related things.