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....


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
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to