I am glad this email created some discussion.
Some users seem to think the change was either reckless or nontransparent.
This includes one user who replied me off list:
> Please continue until they tell the truth.
Given the additional context provided by the answers, I agree with that opinion.
I
> Quite a few projects under the GNU project[1] have dissociated
themselves from the FSF, so "as defined by the FSF" perhaps doesn't
apply as consistently as it did before.
That doesn't really answer any of my questions, though.
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 at 3:26 AM
> From: "Giacomo Tesio"
> To: "Richard Biener"
> Cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "Valentino Giudice"
>
> Subject: Re: GCC Mission Statement
>
> Sure Richard, I know.
>
> On June 9, 2021
Sure Richard, I know.
On June 9, 2021 2:32:22 PM UTC, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> You are free to create "DCO-free" branches for the GCC 11 series
> (and older), reverting any DCO "incumbered" backports that reach
> the official GCC branches for those series.
I could.
Like all other people aff
On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 4:22 PM Giacomo Tesio wrote:
>
> Hi Gabriel,
>
> On June 9, 2021 12:41:09 PM UTC, Gabriel Ravier
> wrote:
> >
> > I do consider that a lack of transparency is pretty bad, and that
> > discussions on subjects like this should be done in public, but I
> > wouldn't say it's ju
Hi Gabriel,
On June 9, 2021 12:41:09 PM UTC, Gabriel Ravier
wrote:
>
> I do consider that a lack of transparency is pretty bad, and that
> discussions on subjects like this should be done in public, but I
> wouldn't say it's just as bad as the potential risk that a fork would
> incur.
I reall
On 6/9/21 12:11 PM, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
Hi Gabriel,
On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 11:44:10 +0200 Gabriel Ravier via Gcc wrote:
Speaking on the "change it recklessly" issue, I would personally say
that SC has indeed arguably done this [...]
some people threatened to pull away from GCC entirely if it remai
Hi Gabriel,
On Wed, 9 Jun 2021 11:44:10 +0200 Gabriel Ravier via Gcc wrote:
> Speaking on the "change it recklessly" issue, I would personally say
> that SC has indeed arguably done this [...]
> some people threatened to pull away from GCC entirely if it remained
> tied to the FSF. I personally h
On 6/9/21 7:09 AM, Valentino Giudice via Gcc wrote:
If the Steering Committee updates the mission statement, it may appear
that the mission statement follows the decisions of the steering
committee (in place of the contrary). In that case, what would be the
purpose of a mission statement?
In es
Le 09/06/2021 à 07:09, Valentino Giudice via Gcc a écrit :
> If the Steering Committee updates the mission statement, it may appear
> that the mission statement follows the decisions of the steering
> committee (in place of the contrary). In that case, what would be the
> purpose of a mission state
On 6/9/21 10:39 AM, Valentino Giudice wrote:
I was aware of that announcement, but it doesn't mention the mission
statement at all.
It appears that the decision in question was, at the time, in contrast
with the mission statement (rather than guided by it).
If the Steering Committee updates the
Thank you.
> Well there was an announcement; the changes in the mission statement reflect
> the new reality introduced by that announcement:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236182.html
>
> Siddhesh
I was aware of that announcement, but it doesn't mention the mission
statement at
On 6/9/21 10:13 AM, Valentino Giudice via Gcc wrote:
Hi.
The Mission Statement of the GCC project recently changed without any
announcement.
Well there was an announcement; the changes in the mission statement
reflect the new reality introduced by that announcement:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipe
Hi.
The Mission Statement of the GCC project recently changed without any
announcement.
I am not a contributor to GCC, merely a user.
However, I'd like to understand more, especially about the
transparency of the project.
The GCC Steering Committee is supposed to follow the mission statement
as
icrashedtheinternet wrote:
I guess I could have worded my email a bit better. Of course I don't
assume that the GCC developers are ignoring standards. Nor do I think
any of us are unaware of GCC's ability to support a standard and have
extensions to it that go beyond the standard. So I simply
I guess I could have worded my email a bit better. Of course I don't
assume that the GCC developers are ignoring standards. Nor do I think
any of us are unaware of GCC's ability to support a standard and have
extensions to it that go beyond the standard. So I simply want to
suggest to the prope
Joe Buck wrote:
The result is that GCC explicitly rejects something that you might have
been taught in compiler class, that the standard is a contract between
the compiler developer and the users and that the compiler can do anything
it wants with any code that does not rigorously meet what is d
On Sat, Feb 03, 2007 at 01:42:06AM -0700, icrashedtheinternet wrote:
> I just read the GCC Mission Statement and I see nothing there about
> conforming to international standards for programming languages. Why
> does the GCC Mission Statement not include conforming to
> internationa
icrashedtheinternet wrote:
I just read the GCC Mission Statement and I see nothing there about
conforming to international standards for programming languages. Why
does the GCC Mission Statement not include conforming to
internationally accepted standards? Its very counterproductive not to
use
I just read the GCC Mission Statement and I see nothing there about
conforming to international standards for programming languages. Why
does the GCC Mission Statement not include conforming to
internationally accepted standards? Its very counterproductive not to
use standards.
-John Burak
20 matches
Mail list logo
