|| ||Joe Buck <Joe.Buck-AT-synopsys.COM> |
|| ||Daniel Berlin <dberlin-AT-dberlin.org> |
|| ||Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13) |
|| ||Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:58:58 -0700|
|| ||David Edelsohn <dje.gcc-AT-gmail.com>, Richard Guenther <rguenther-AT-suse.de>, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin-AT-googlemail.com>, "gcc-AT-gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-AT-gcc.gnu.org>|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Daniel Berlin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> Okay then, as the leadership body of the GCC community, part of your
> >> responsibility is keeping your constituents (the rest of us!) informed
> >> of the status of things troubling them.
> >> I don't believe saying "we have given the FSF a deadline to meet in
> >> the near future" would at all endanger any diplomacy, and i'd love to
> >> see a counter argument that says otherwise.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:09 PM, David Edelsohn <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I am sorry that you did not receive the memo.
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 09:45:40AM -0700, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> This is a fairly rude response for something that has been a
> consistent problem for GCC developers (lack of status updates from the
> SC on issues important to GCC developers).
I agree that David's response comes off sounding rude. We're
all frustrated, but still ...
> I've said my piece. It's fairly obvious the SC has no plans to change
> (they have no incentive to).
Actually, I'd like to change it; many members of the SC (Toon in
particular, I think) are quite frustrated. And David is speaking
here for himself only, not the SC.
The problem in this instance is that the SC has little power; it's
the FSF that's holding things up and I don't know more than you do.
to post comments)