From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Berlin To: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Cc: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu, rth@cygnus.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, law@redhat.com, rms@gnu.org Subject: Re: Why not gnat Ada in gcc? Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:16:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <20001102025351.6992434DAF@nile.gnat.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg00067.html dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes: > < to be doing your development in the open if at all possible. And > clearly (as Cygnus nee Red Hat and Codesourcery demonstrate) it is > not only possible, but not particularly difficult. > >> > > Actually from past experiences recently, e.g. with the ia64 port, I have > been struck by how closed the development was. Same thing for gdb5, this > was kept under wraps for a long time. A large company (I won't name names) > that we worked with was essentially operating as though it were under > non-disclosure. Both the ia64 port and gdb5 were sudden massive updates, > and it is hard to see how else it could have been done. What? gdb5 was not a sudden massive update. What are you talking about? Can you point the changelog entry where all of gdb5 suddenly appeared in? It looks like a pretty logical progression looking through the changelogs, starting with april 1999->may 22, 2000. --Dan