From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20652 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2004 00:00:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20644 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2004 00:00:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO desire.geoffk.org) (67.169.96.182) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2004 00:00:44 -0000 Received: from desire.geoffk.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by desire.geoffk.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i0L00hQ0022102 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:00:43 -0800 Received: (from geoffk@localhost) by desire.geoffk.org (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id i0L00hPd022098; Tue, 20 Jan 2004 16:00:43 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: desire.geoffk.org: geoffk set sender to geoffk@geoffk.org using -f To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 3.5 "integration branch" References: From: Geoff Keating Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 00:00:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg01592.txt.bz2 David Edelsohn writes: > We feel that the unauthorized creation of an "integration branch" for 3.5, I object in the strongest possible terms to this statement. The creation of the branch was not unauthorized. My authority was , which clearly states: > Free for all > > The following changes can be made by everyone with CVS write access: > ... > Creating and using a branch for development, including outside the > parts of the compiler one maintains, provided that changes on the > branch have copyright assignments on file. Merging such developments > back to the mainline still needs approval in the usual way. This paragraph was written by Joseph Meyers following a statement by Mark Mitchell, and was then approved by Mark Mitchell. I demand that the SC promptly correct the false and personally hurtful statement it made. > This was especially unfortunate when objections to the "integration > branch" proposal, solicited by a developer, were ignored. I would like to make it clear that no objections were ignored. Each comment was considered, but there was no proposed alternative course of action that fixed the problems I described. Indeed, I saw one alternative course of action proposed, by Mark Mitchell, and it at best partially addressed only one of the three problems. > While the GNU GCC Project encourages development branches, primary GNU > GCC development branches are the responsibility of the GCC SC and RM. I would also like to make it clear that I did not intend this branch to be the responsibity of the GCC SC, or of the RM; I believe I made it quite clear that it would be my responsibility. Nor did I intend that this would be a 'primary GNU GCC development branch' by the dictionary definition. I designed the rules for the branch to ensure that this branch was clearly secondary to the trunk. -- - Geoffrey Keating