From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ed1-x534.google.com (mail-ed1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::534]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4007D39730F1 for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2021 14:32:34 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 4007D39730F1 Received: by mail-ed1-x534.google.com with SMTP id dj8so28884301edb.6 for ; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 07:32:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jrBauzWy5ULZRhADLJdLmw0AQnFziicRVOUuyWPxGOc=; b=dTGjSckqb/yminsTV9XGj9SGF39EGNN19b8+6oJZK5H9Hi4U6TZJntpAbnmC2LnQId FRu/cnyMqalnX8SWGfC5lXRLNnpSuZKuVCZWarwAfMkitw5lCLU9We0RfEBqaIlNvu5o iQM8zs+2BKOhLWcF6XvhvipuzSHvXuDQdBEz7IE+ArGuPKR1y6Cxf5cKviODR5ZXiP58 DFUbuvU6oAoPHpNZBtXH9SBa+0fJ2gT30BYtUQfYdnIUkTS/Ed6C0F6I6VBNiNrX1aB0 uIQy24uSpq+OEBlzpAlqq69/pqb7sojAha95YJMTcmvaTcTuk1DA+713uCi/6tnleLVa 8PRg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533yqsftk8A36LGvU6+twoYRGx6Z6HLTJFAph+dJaAbQaLsr+5yu 4nLsxWuEyfaMj8scR7Nh6/taONPWYVG5DJJ/mG0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyzzJWAyz7A1AAqYNlLTTqZ6yEPiFT0TkjVDwambfRP6TRAD1+U2p3bPr8F4BE+j/lJ4zd1YK9bEPCNxGDVpzI= X-Received: by 2002:aa7:cd42:: with SMTP id v2mr31484776edw.245.1623249153331; Wed, 09 Jun 2021 07:32:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5ed046a2-a2f1-f5e3-7399-dbf31808b8ef@gotplt.org> <736215d3-72b8-b2e2-f406-80d3d38688e0@gmail.com> <20210609121128.0000240f@tesio.it> <8feed312-8129-7fed-0885-1aee018a9a99@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Richard Biener Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 16:32:22 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GCC Mission Statement To: Giacomo Tesio Cc: Gabriel Ravier , Valentino Giudice , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, FREEMAIL_FROM, 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, 09 Jun 2021 14:32:35 -0000 On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 4:22 PM Giacomo Tesio wrote: > > Hi Gabriel, > > On June 9, 2021 12:41:09 PM UTC, Gabriel Ravier > 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.