> And indeed, while this is a controversial statement with which > some people will disagree, I believe that that split was caused in > part by commercial interests on both sides of the split (and I was > there at the time).
Indeed I disagree. I'm not aware of any commercial interests on the FSF GCC side. As far as I can recall, the split was between the commercial interests on the EGCS side and the non-commercial interests on the FSF side. > Lacking a benevolent dictator means that "trust but verify" does not > work, because there is no way to implement the "verify" step. Or, > rather: if "verify" fails, there is no useful action to take, except > in the most obvious of cases. I disagree here too. Anybody has the right and ability to look at a patch that was already committed, decide they don't like it, and say why. And they can patch the patch. We see people doing this for spelling and whitespace errors all the time. > So my conclusion is that, for gcc, it is wise to require a formal > confirmation process before somebody is allowed to approve patches or > commit patches without approval from others. However, I certainly agree with that!
