On Mon, Jun 7, 2021 at 3:10 PM Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it> wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > On June 7, 2021 7:35:01 AM UTC, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 5:27 PM Jason Merrill via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 10:46 AM Giacomo Tesio <giac...@tesio.it> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I would have really appreciated if the GCC SC had announced such > > change > > > > for the upcoming GCC 12 while sticking to the old policy in GCC > > 11. > > > > > > > > > > That is how I was thinking of the change, but I agree that it needs > > > clarification. > > > > I don't think this is very practical - we'd need to check each and > > every commit before considering backporting fixes, no? > > I'm a bit surprised: aren't such commits reviewed anyway on backport? > > Even if they apply smoothly, they could introduce nasty bugs if applied > blindly.
They are, but up until now (and hopefully in the future as well) only technical review is necessary, not license review. It would be also bad to not be able to fix a nasty bug on branches because the fix is under the DCO. > Also, are there many non-FSF-assigned contribution in the development > branch already? I'm not aware of any anywhere yet. > > "tainted" > > Sad word choice, tbh. That was intended given you think it makes a difference at all. Ricahrd. > Given that such major development decision was not discussed here but > Imposed unilateraly by the Steering Committee, a bit of forewarning would be > much more professional. > > Not because the new version are somehow "tainted" but because the many > different > users of GCC around the world deserve a bit more respect, imho. > > > This is not a minor change and should not be introduced in minor versions. > > It's a breaking change, after all. > > > Giacomo
