From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Steven Bosscher Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gcc.fortran,gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs and GFortran Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 01:43:30 +0100 Message-ID: <200611030143.30545.steven.bosscher@gmail.com> References: <20061102190005.GA6116@meiner.onlinehome.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1162514598 9155 80.91.229.2 (3 Nov 2006 00:43:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 00:43:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Thomas Koenig , ams@gnu.org, wt@atmos.colostate.edu, sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: fortran-return-15423-gcgf-fortran=m.gmane.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Nov 03 01:43:15 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcgf-fortran@gmane.org Original-Received: from sourceware.org ([209.132.176.174]) by ciao.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Gfn9N-00076e-51 for gcgf-fortran@gmane.org; Fri, 03 Nov 2006 01:43:13 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 14813 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2006 00:43:11 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 14804 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Nov 2006 00:43:10 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,DK_SIGNED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Original-Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Nov 2006 00:43:06 +0000 Original-Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z34so254555ugc for ; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:43:03 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id:from; b=XEZDHkkw4KEWtJ8njW4rtBfGetNLxV9LQszHX3CRKvZPB63wP1Zq60hEokOubrssbCpe8OMvOWKv1CvpY1PWgY5s8gih3f+bkIqG6uFGJElCvDlpwp3ihGKUBPSBQpfXg03vMCF3IXCSigkQfIlRccqpA35ZdeuBgJKR29wVKco= Original-Received: by 10.66.242.5 with SMTP id p5mr1766193ugh.1162514583581; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:43:03 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from ?192.168.1.102? ( [84.107.151.148]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j33sm131582ugc.2006.11.02.16.43.02; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:43:02 -0800 (PST) Original-To: fortran@gcc.gnu.org, Eli Zaretskii User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline Mailing-List: contact fortran-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Original-Sender: fortran-owner@gcc.gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.gcc.fortran:15392 gmane.emacs.devel:61647 Archived-At: On Thursday 02 November 2006 21:22, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 20:00:05 +0100 > > From: Thomas Koenig > > Cc: fortran@gcc.gnu.org, wt@atmos.colostate.edu, > > Steve Kargl , emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > > If your patch is non-trivial, we need copyright papers from you > > assigning copyright of any changes to the gcc source tree to > > the FSF. Do you have a copyright assignment? > > Yes, he does (and you should have been able to check that yourself in > copyright.list). You should have been able to check that not all GCC developers can check copyright.list, thank you very much. > > If these conditions are met, then post the patch to > > gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org and fortran@gcc.gnu.org. Usually there > > will be a discussion of the patch, possibly leading to requirements > > for changes. Finally, if all goes well, a maintainer will approve > > the patch and (if you don't have commit privileges) commit it. > > If I were Alfred, I'd hesitate to submit a patch, given the attitude > of several GFortranners. That attitude is so hostile that I'd suggest > to talk to the steering committee about it. Puh-lease... If anyone is really hostile here, it is AMS, and you're on the border of hostility yourself. What in the world are you trying to achieve with all this whining? Chasing away gfortran developers? Try as you might, the fact is that you can't force volunteers to do what you want. In the case of gfortran, all developers are volunteers, and it just so happens that most of us like gfortran's current way of reporting errors. The people who work on gfortran are usually people who need a Fortran compiler for their research/hobby/work/etc. They work on things they believe are important. Apparently they don't use Emacs, so the error format issue, which has existed since the incarnation of the project 6 years ago, is just not a major issue for any gfortran developers. If a developer would care, the issue would be fixed. Should gfortran conform to the GNU standards? Preferably yes. But if no developer (volunteer!) cares to make it so, tough luck but it is not going to happen. Then you arrogant folks come in, doing nothing but complaining and telling respected gfortran developers (nice people, I know some of them in person) that they basically don't know what they're talking about, and that The Only Right Way is the way you want things to be even though the patches AMS has posted clearly show he has no understanding of the gfortran diagnostics mechanisms. How arrogant, you should be ashamed of yourselves. So go ahead and take it up with the SC, and watch to see gfortran hackers getting so frustrated with your whining that they just give up on the whole project and just invest their precious time in something that does not require interacting with people like you. > > That's the way gcc and gfortran maintenance works. In practice, > > it works pretty well. > > Well for whom, exactly? For me, at least. And for everyone else in the GCC community, AFAICT. Now, can you go be frustrated about something eise in some place else? Gr. Steven