Joe Buck wrote: > Maybe not so cool, unless you are careful. The problem is that if you > don't keep track of who submitted what, or if you accept some critical > code from someone who is either unwilling or unable to legally contribute > their work to the FSF, it can never be accepted as part of the official > GCC. > > Please read > > http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
Right- I've read this and I'm aware of the situation. I am prepared to 'keep my
ducks in a row'. :)
> You're setting yourself up to build a separate, isolated group of
> developers, rather than working with the GCC experts, if you go off and
> start your own site and your own separate project. You can do that if
> you want, but it has disadvantages.
I can't argue that isolation has disadvantages. However, I think there are
arguments for it, as well:
1. I said in my original post that the rest of development won't affect us.
What I *should* have said is our work won't affect[1] the rest of
development.
Until such time that we have enough of a port to generate code, we can't
even
compile GCC, much less start mucking around in internals.
2. gcc@gcc.gnu.org is ..erhm, really noisy. :) I'd rather not stay
subscribed to
it. I could be wrong, but I don't envision a need to talk to the entire
group of developers very often. Keeping it separate would keep me sane.
You are free to argue these points, and I ask that you please do so if there are
issues I have overlooked. Otherwise, I will continue as planned.
Thanks for the comments!
-Bryan
[1] It is possible that, at some point, we might find places to tighten up code,
fix bugs, or clean up documentation. However, I would discourage anyone from
making those changes to our independent branch. Instead, they should be made to
the main tree, and we would resync to it afterwards.
--
Bryan Richter
UCDTT President
UC Davis Undergrad, Physics Dept.
-
A PGP signature is (probably) attached to this email.
PGP Key ID: BB8E6CCC
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
