On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM, NightStrike <nightstr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis > <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM, NightStrike <nightstr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis >>> <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Shooting down a potentially user friendly feature to wait until some blue >>>>> sky redesign is implemented means it might never be implemented. >>>> >>>> This is a mischaracterization and you know it. >>>> >>>> -- Gaby >>> >>> It is and it isn't. The guy willing to do the basic color stuff has >>> no desire to do what you want. Is there someone else lined up to do >>> it? If not, then forcing a wait on it effectively blocks the >>> available developer. >> >> No. When you submit a patch to GCC (whether it is diagnostics or not >> is immaterial), you expect that it will get reviewed and recommendations >> will be made about the appropriate way to get it done. Just have a look >> at gcc-patches. There is no thing new here. If the submitter >> refused to follow the recommendations, it is unfair it is being shut down >> or blocked. > > Be that as it may, at the end of the day, we won't have color gcc if > you insist on waiting for the better framework.
Not necessarily. Would you or Jakub say that he is attempting to shoot down the switch to C++, just because he wants to see some components converted done first (blue sky redesigned done first) even though he did not explicitly offer to do that conversion himself, or would you say that he is making a recommendation of what he considers to be in the best long term interest. I would say the latter. Orange and apple analogy aside. -- Gaby
