Re: MinGW (Was: Re: PROPOSAL: Variation on an Alternate policy for obsoleting targets)

[Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>]

On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 08:08:57PM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>However, there are some platforms which are supported by non-gcc
>>developers and aren't useful as-is from FSF sources, yet the platform's
>>users desperately wish that gcc would work as-is.
>
>The solution to that, is to make those non-gcc developers gcc
>maintainers.
>
>>Given MinGW's importance as the only real way to run gcc on Windows, I
>>don't see why it's not even a secondary platform for gcc.
>
>So make Danny the MinGW maintainer for GCC.

I've been offering this to Danny for some time.  He is not interested.

I'm not sure what the problem is here.  Danny has been pretty good about
getting mingw/cygwin changes into the trunk.  Where possible, I approve
the changes as quickly as possible.  From the MAINTAINERS file:

windows, cygwin, mingw  Christopher Faylor      cgf@redhat.com

The existence of a mingw patch set should not be a cause for alarm.
We're working on getting mingw and cygwin aligned with gcc trunk.  For a
while we had a branch in gcc for development but I dropped that due to
time constraint.  However, the merging of changes from the
patches/branch is happening.  It's just happening in volunteer time,
like most free software projects.

I'm not sure why mingw is being talked about as if it was a secondary
platform.  From my point of view it receives a lot of high quality
attention from Danny.

cgf