On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 09:49:57PM +0200, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 01:41:59PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> > More important (and getting off the soap-box, or at least changing to a
> > different one): people seem to be saying that Liqin acted wrongly in
> > che
On Thu, Oct 26, 2006 at 01:41:59PM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> More important (and getting off the soap-box, or at least changing to a
> different one): people seem to be saying that Liqin acted wrongly in
> checking in patches to the port. Surely the procedural problem was
> at the FSF end
Gah! My seond procedural post in as many days, sorry.
First: I've been very disappointed by the tone that some gcc developers
have taken against Liqin. We've built up an awful lot of rules and
procedures around gcc -- with many more now than when I started six
years ago -- and I don't think it's
