From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
To: Mike Stump <mrs@windriver.com>
Cc: dewar@gnat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu, rms@gnu.org, rth@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc? 
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 21:03:00 -0000
Message-id: <15633.973141471@upchuck>
References: <200011020435.UAA27399@kankakee.wrs.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg00103.html

  In message < 200011020435.UAA27399@kankakee.wrs.com >you write:
  > > To: dewar@gnat.com, law@redhat.com
  > My experience is, once you measure, and then provide that measurement
  > back to the developers in a timely fashion, in a sane format, they
  > will actually learn to keep the numbers at zero, once they get them
  > down to zero.  Currently the testing feedback to developers kinda
  > sucks right now at the FSF, it is better inside of Cygnus, ACT.
  > 
  > If you provided the feedback for the public sources, in a sane manner,
  > I suspect you could get the developers to stop breaking things as
  > often as you think they do.
Exactly.  In fact, Geoff's automatic regression tester and "email the offending
parties" is proving quite useful in identifying culprits and getting them to
fix their problems.  I'm not arguing it's perfect, but it's one step in the
right direction.

Yes, Dewar, if someone breaks the tree, they get a nasty gram about it.  In
fact, the bulk changes from ACT have been one of the biggest offenders in the
past.

jeff