Steven Bosscher wrote:
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...
I strongly believe we would have had the same discussions WRT SVN &
bugzilla with or without FSF involvement in the project. I switch in
source control and bug tracking systems for a project of this size
without due consideration would be dumb.
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?
Personally, I would have continued to put my effort into EGCS.
Obviously, I can't speak for other developers specifically, I believe if
you compared overall developer participation in the projects, it was
clear that EGCS was more viable.
jeff
