On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 08:08:38AM -0700, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > It was my understanding that it was a compromise, but the > EGCS community retains all rights to make technical > decisions without disruptive interferences from FSF
And that's pretty much the way it's worked. RMS objected to using bugzilla; we use bugzilla. RMS objected to switching to subversion. RMS argued against independent administration of gcc.gnu.org. RMS doesn't hang out on the gcc list trying to micromanage everything. The maintainers are in charge of their areas; Mark and his team are in charge of releases. And the day-to-day development practices GCC uses are the ones developed in the egcs days. Remember the old days when the location of the development tree and the snapshots was a secret, and people were threatened with banning if they let it out? I do think that RMS overstepped the line that we had set up when he told us to hold off on creating a release branch. That was unprecedented interference.
