Giovanni Bajo wrote: > This is a little unfair, though. So now the burden on enforcing the policy is > not on the maintainers that prepare the patches?
No, that burden falls on the Release Manager. However, the SC has also given me considerable latitude to exercise my judgement, which I did. I made the decision that, if safety could be prserved, this patch was worthwhile. My point was that people who did not like the direction in which I was moving could have gone over my head to the SC right away. > it misses the point that many important resources in GCC are being used in > fixing and testing this new feature, instead of putting GCC in shape for the > release. So the release has been already delayed because of this, and will be > even more. That's something which already happened. I agree. I am not happy about being put in this position, and I've made that clear. I have also indicated that this represents a communication problem. As expressed before, part of that is GLIBC/GCC communication -- but, in addition, communication on the part of the PowerPC GNU/Linux developers, who participate in both GLIBC and GCC development. Your objections, and those of others, have been noted, and I will bear your concern in mind in future. However, my decision for 4.1, right or wrong, has been made; the compiler portions of these changes, if I deem them safe, and if off by default, will be part of GCC 4.1. At this point, we can live with that decision, criticize it, or ask the SC to intervene. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
