[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Kenner) writes: > > 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.
I don't need or want to dig this up yet again. I'll just reaffirm that my beliefs are what they are, and that others disagree. > > 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. Of course. But what we can not do, in practice, is revert a patch which does not actually break anything. Heck, sometimes we can't even revert a patch which *does* break things. Ian
