From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26014 invoked by alias); 28 Nov 2007 16:34:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 25999 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Nov 2007 16:34:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail5.primus.ca (HELO mail-09.primus.ca) (216.254.141.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 16:34:11 +0000 Received: from ottawa-hs-209-217-122-41.s-ip.magma.ca ([209.217.122.41] helo=[192.168.8.125]) by mail-09.primus.ca with esmtpa (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1IxPrW-00073A-03; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 11:34:10 -0500 Message-ID: <474D98AF.8040709@ellipticsemi.com> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 18:18:00 -0000 From: Tom St Denis User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20071022) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "J.C. Pizarro" CC: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: reduce compilation times? References: <998d0e4a0711280801p691d0d63i8bae79518df973d8@mail.gmail.com> <474D922B.1080103@ellipticsemi.com> <998d0e4a0711280830n39277234k47bd57664960e217@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <998d0e4a0711280830n39277234k47bd57664960e217@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Authenticated: elp125 - ottawa-hs-209-217-122-41.s-ip.magma.ca ([192.168.8.125]) [209.217.122.41] X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-11/txt/msg00378.txt.bz2 J.C. Pizarro wrote: >> Anyways, most OSS projects routinely violate most basic rules of proper >> software development. About the only thing they get right is they at >> least use some form of revision and bug control. Firefox is another >> beast. OpenOffice is a much more annoying offender. >> > > Repairing the development's violations is not an offense. > It's a good solution to try repair the violated rules of software development. > I'd like to think, at least in the GCC case, that there are plenty of good folk to steer things in the right direction. Could be wrong, but so far GCC has been a fairly reliable toolsuite. Unlike the anthem of the bazaar not all projects are helped by having 1000s of unqualified hands in the pot. I'm not a compiler designer. Just because I can design and write software doesn't mean I should be engineering a compiler project. So we have to trust that the people who own/maintain the tree are actually going to make things better. And in the end, it's not perfect, but honestly what is? All I'd like to see if people can easily help avoid bad development practices, why not?