Re: An article about the Cygnus tree

[David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>]

>>>>> Michael Sokolov writes:

Michael> I'm sorry that you've failed to see the whole point of my article, which is to
Michael> persuade the powers that be to merge the src and gcc repos. What's keeping GCC
Michael> in its own repo are the people on the GNU side of things who see it as
Michael> independent from the Cygnus tree. But what I'm arguing in my article is that
Michael> this perception of GCC's independence from the Cygnus tree by some GCC
Michael> maintainers is bogus. To become really independent, they would have to really
Michael> break all ties with the Cygnus tree, removing the top-level configure script
Michael> and Makefile that support the rest of the tree and taking away the single tree
Michael> build. I very seriously doubt that they'll be able to do that, unless they
Michael> commit the change anonymously so that the angry mob of embedded developers
Michael> using the single tree build doesn't get them, and if they are not going to do
Michael> that, they are still tied to the Cygnus tree whether they are in the main repo
Michael> with the master copies of the top-level files or using stale mirrors of those
Michael> files in their own repo, and everyone would benefit and no one would lose
Michael> anything from switching to the former.

	No one sees the trees as independent and no one is trying to keep
the independent.  No one is arguing against merging the trees.  It simply
takes time and effort which no one has time to tackle at the moment.  The
only concern is being able to make a single, coordinated distribution in
the face of the different schedules of the various packages.  One still
can create a release branch and stabilize the various dependent components
in that branch for a particular package (gcc, binutils, gdb, etc.).

	I do not understand why you insist on looking for conspiracies and
attributing ulterior motives where there are none.  Have you ever heard of
"Occam's razor"?  If there is a simple explanation, it most likely is
correct.

David