On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:33:18 MDT "M. Warner Losh" <i...@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > : > It is clear that not everyone has the same view of what the > : > acceptance criteria might be so publishing it would help > : > people understand what to expect. > : > : nothing changes for the ports, there's an ongoing project to enable > : ports to be usable with clang (or some other compiler) but thats > : orthogonal to this. > > Part of the problem with this thread is that the whole, agreed plan > wasn't laid out at the first part of it, so people are freaking out > about what the plans are for the future. They were discussed and > first order agreement was reached at the tool chains summit. But part > of the agreement was to post the whole agreement so people know and > understand the various trade offs. > > I think that would go a long way towards answering the questions that > are being raised and to quell the visceral reaction that I've seen in > this thread....
Exactly! I still urge core to lay out a clear plan. And don't forget to indicate the acceptance criteria to be met for each step! [Not to add bureaucracy but to ensure that nothing falls through the cracks] Can't speak for others but I am very appreciative of all the work put in enthusiastically by Roman and others to get clang into FreeBSD. Exciting to have a real alternative to gcc! _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
