On Sun, 8 Nov 2009, Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: >> All of which terribly reminds me of the painful (for end users, ISVs, >> IHVs, OSVs,...) situation we have with the Linux kernel and out-of-tree >> modules. > I do agree with the similarity. But is that situation [of today's linux > kernel modules?] really so painful??
Quite, as far as out-of-tree modules go. In tree, things are different. > So perhaps GCC plugins are better than no plugins at all. Only time can > tell. Oh, I didn't say plugins (or kernel modules) are undesirable, let alone bad. > And if plugins are not that important, adding more hooks (so perhaps > removing some of them later) is not really important neither (so I am > even more confused that we are debating a few new hooks so much, and > putting more energy in discussions than in patches). If plugins are not > a success, we could eventually remove entirely the plugin support in GCC > 5.0 (or even 4.6). [I have no idea of who will decide that, and I have > no idea of who decided that GCC can have plugins. Perhaps the Steering > Commitee, or RMS himself??? Not RMS for sure, and pretty much not the steering committee unless there is strong disagreement among the primarily responsible parties (= the technical maintainers). > Are there any objective measures of the temperature of a mailing list > :-) :-) ? ? ? Not that I'd know of, but the GCC lists are extremely harmless nearly all of the time (and this discussion is still quite on the harmless side of things). > Now my mood is that is is quite funny to discuss all that. I am enjoying > it. :-) :-) Happy to hear that. :-) Gerald
