From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com (mail-pg1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF3173851C16 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 16:18:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org BF3173851C16 Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id l76so14760899pga.6 for ; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:18:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=XD0QxG1n9eSxe2blq45GJUQJnK5h9VKrb6WnS0z74W4=; b=Er5Vdzt2SFH0xkBOGkTEpsbLzxV9hxorzo5XyQBo96e8sWHzk/5SaaZFqu/r5Ki597 FLEgKe/haemfukQJJveBGYxIMc/zELU3UPgh7LERWv/Ss4pQ+3kmR2l1UVt5B4sei2kg Vz26HC+E3tfSlOjr7oof3GU190ker3zc9Mnd+b7CNlnD8MG6JnMrKW7MZJujdhuqQ1xB OZ17wzM7+5h9QdOnoo9JdahZEXLSslbNPFhYcSb5PiwF/J+GC8DB65jFxJ8sL2WpayZc vtMOAoMBD+TbwNICU6zukWtpikWIRO6sG0LOAoIRI1EqbPgIo8bLDorak+4oWwxAHX3Q ZDKg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531aGJfABr06XTh1LcFnrESvMc+CGEzcgIxNGaNIB+BuWDFz3Syx VfdmuGwTK45G77IN/zqDMb0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyqXITBP689uEShYOZ24xBmdas3fA0iRGbE9AnIunFFTlzOq4uErvBhY0S3QCEUnJtz7ze3Sg== X-Received: by 2002:a63:4c55:: with SMTP id m21mr39647386pgl.251.1618417130817; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.29] (65-130-82-141.slkc.qwest.net. [65.130.82.141]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u17sm15041472pfm.113.2021.04.14.09.18.50 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 14 Apr 2021 09:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF To: Richard Biener , Jonathan Wakely , Jonathan Wakely via Gcc , Thomas Koenig References: <5ce167be-d5ea-1261-9238-4ee1c6a2150b@hesbynett.no> <81abf7b0-cc9e-78d3-c254-8581bce8edd6@gmail.com> <1b73a3d2-4e7e-d226-ccc6-5002997b1ea0@netcologne.de> <4d1e7a20-5b8e-3cf5-84a2-54414e348d3a@gmail.com> <2d64cd98-91ce-06c0-de31-fc0366d9651c@netcologne.de> <88a60988-8f65-d1b2-f822-f223fa180a6d@gmail.com> <6fcc2383-8bc3-6cd9-0f8c-567048511ba7@netcologne.de> <08ac68f3-17a5-fb70-3894-090a122a2dea@netcologne.de> From: Jeff Law Message-ID: <3d798025-35a7-b32b-f13c-3dec989b5f2c@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 10:18:49 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 16:18:53 -0000 On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: >> N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC >> >> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig >> wrote: >>> - All gfortran developers move to the new branch. This will not >>> happen, I can guarantee you that. >> This is the part I'm curious about (the rest is obvious, it follows > >from there being finite resources and the nature of any fork). But I'm >> not going to press for reasons. > Note the only viable fork will be on the current hosting (which isn't FSF controlled) with the downside of eventually losing the gcc.gnu.org DNS and thus a need to "switch" to a sourceware.org name. I strongly suspect you're right here.  Ultimately if one fork reaches critical mass, then it survives and the other dies.  That's a function of the developer community.   Right now I don't see the nightmare scenario of both forks being viable playing out -- however I'm more concerned now than I was before due Thomas's comments. > > Given there would be actual work involved on the FSF side to keep a "fork" with the exact same setup (and thus transparent with existing setups) I don't see it keeping live (but I see somebody populating savannah with sources). Absolutely.  I could even see a small community continuing to push the FSF fork for a while until it becomes abundantly clear that only one fork is long term viable.  That's what happened with EGCS -- the majority of the developer community went with the EGCS fork with a small community staying on the FSF fork.  Eventually it became clear that EGCS had much broader developer support and the FSF fork ultimately withered away. Jeff