On Mar 2, 2007, at 7:57 AM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
[ Moving from gcc-patches to gcc ]
Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The LLVM dev policy does not to try to define common sense. It is a
rough guideline which can be deviated from when it makes sense.
"Trust but verify" starts with trust.
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.
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.
You are right that LLVM development and GCC development have many
differences in structure. As you say, having a benevolent dictator
simplifies things a lot, and I would argue that incremental
development has an impact that is just as large.
Others have said that an intermediate may exist between the two
sides, one which is more suitable for the GCC development process. I
agree, but I'll step out of the discussion and let you guys figure it
out :)
-Chris
