From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
To: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Cc: 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 21:17:00 -0000
Message-id: <15769.973142344@upchuck>
References: <20001102035841.1C5CB34D82@nile.gnat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg00107.html

  In message < 20001102035841.1C5CB34D82@nile.gnat.com >you write:
  > <<Right.  THe problem is strictly your problem as a business, it is not a
  > problem for the GNU project.  Thus, you should confine that problem to your
  > own internal sources and not force it on the official GNU sources.
  > >>
  > 
  > No one is forcing anything on anyone! Indeed if anything it seems like
  > Jeff is trying to force some unworkable model here, although it is a little
  > hard to follow, since in practice, I think the situation with GNAT will
  > be quite similar to that of gcc, avoiding hopefully the phenomena of
  > out-of-the-blue major things like the ia32 port.
No.  I'm not trying to force an unworkable model here.  I'm trying to make
sure that ACT and anyone else that wants to get involved in GNU Ada development
is on equal footing.

Actually, you should look at the true history of the new ia32 port.  While the
initial work was done internally under NDA.  Eventually the development was
moved externally onto a branch so that everyone could collaborate in an open
way.  Once the various parties were happy with the state of the work, that
work was moved into the head of the gcc tree.

jeff