On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 3:50 PM, Joel Sherrill <joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com> wrote: > EGCS was an experiment in development methodologies > that was intended to open up gcc.
And a lot of good was done: CVS, GNAT, etc. Then egcs folded back into gcc, and we had discussions over SVN and Bugzilla. The restrictions the FSF imposes on GCC (or rather ironically, the lack of freedom) are one of the main reasons why GCC still doesn't have a proper distributed distributed version control system. So much for advancing to newer development methodologies... > If successful, > the goal was to move from being a fork to being > the main GCC FSF development. There was never any > intention of becoming a non-FSF fork. So what if the FSF hadn't accepted the reality of the day, and had decided to let egcs *not* be the official GCC? Would you have pulled the plug on egcs and gone back to the cathedral? Ciao! Steven
