From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
To: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Cc: guerby@acm.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, rms@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc? 
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 20:04:00 -0000
Message-id: <5547.971233419@upchuck>
References: <20001001153500.5FBCB34D84@nile.gnat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-10/msg00215.html

  In message < 20001001153500.5FBCB34D84@nile.gnat.com >you write:
  > Laurent Guerby asks
  > 
  > <<I don't know if ACT has debated the issue, but assuming the GNAT
  > sources end up in the GCC CVS repository what will be the updating
  > policy between the ACT tree and the public GCC one? One massive update
  > from ACT per public GNAT version? Minor updates when GCC backend
  > interface changes are made that break the compilation of the Ada
  > frontend? Or more frequent updates?
  > >>
  > 
  > Certainly new releases of GNAT always have major additions, which will
  > result in a fairly massive update to the tree (as has happened with
  > other GNU tools when major updates are made). We will also provide minor
  > updates and patches as we go along to correct significant problems or
  > deal with interface changes.
I think that's the wrong model.  Dumping in massive changes like that makes
it nearly impossible for others outside ACT to be involved with development.  

I would much rather see the GCC CVS sources become the master sources and
GNU Ada work happen in that source tree on an incremental basis just like
the other parts of the GNU compiler suite.

Basically the whole GNAT development process is closed to developers outside
ACT.  That is terribly unfortunate.

jeff