Re: GCC Mission Statement

[Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 4:22 PM Giacomo Tesio <giacomo@tesio.it> wrote:
>
> Hi Gabriel,
>
> On June 9, 2021 12:41:09 PM UTC, Gabriel Ravier <gabravier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I do consider that a lack of transparency is pretty bad, and that
> > discussions on subjects like this should be done in public, but I
> > wouldn't say it's just as bad as the potential risk that a fork would
> > incur.
>
> I really wonder what kind of risks are you thinking about.
>
> Really, I could not see anyone.
>
> Two organizations with different goals and values that explore
> different ways to implement a compiler collection cannot cause any harm.
>
>
> > As for a lack of professionalism, I think it's pretty clear that GCC
> > 11 is the cutoff point here
>
> May you point me to the line in the GCC 11.1's Changelog that
> document this?
>
> I cannot find anything!

Because GCC 11.1 was not affected by this change though GCC 11.1.1+
will.

You are free to create "DCO-free" branches for the GCC 11 series
(and older), reverting any DCO "incumbered" backports that reach
the official GCC branches for those series.  git should make that
easy up to the first major conflict / dependence issue.

Richard.