On Sep 30, 2006, at 6:09 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
maintenance of Darwin in the FSF repository has been very inconsistent.
Just to be concrete, could you give an example or two of the worst types of problems that existed in the past? My recollection is that most of the things that Geoff's regression tester trips over are usually these things don't have much to do with darwin.
I would be in favor of making Darwin a primary platform if such a change would encourage Apple to make more of an effort to engage FSF GCC development and maintenance. Can GCC get such a commitment?
I think that asking for such is doomed to bad feelings and disappointment; I've never seen any good come from such things. This is why historically we, the gcc project, don't make predictions about the future or future contributions or future timings. The standard answer is, when _you_ contribute it, it will be done, not before. Anyway, if you have a list of current PRs that you're concerned about, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Without such a commitment and follow-through, I am not sure whether the potential reward of greater involvement from Apple is worth the risk of unfixed problems dragging down GCC releases.
Ouch, I guess I didn't realize that all we do is drag down gcc releases. I'm sorry, I guess I've just been ignorant of just how bad things are.
