>>>>> Mike Stump writes:
Mike> On Sep 30, 2006, at 6:09 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> maintenance of Darwin in the FSF repository has been very
>> inconsistent.
Mike> Just to be concrete, could you give an example or two of the worst
Mike> types of problems that existed in the past? My recollection is that
Mike> most of the things that Geoff's regression tester trips over are
Mike> usually these things don't have much to do with darwin.
Maintenance is more than regressions in the GCC testsuite.
>> Without such a commitment and follow-through, I am not sure whether
>> the potential reward of greater involvement from Apple is worth the
>> risk of unfixed problems dragging down GCC releases.
Mike> Ouch, I guess I didn't realize that all we do is drag down gcc
Mike> releases. I'm sorry, I guess I've just been ignorant of just how bad
Mike> things are.
I hope that this was meant as sarcasm because that obviously is
not what I said. I am not interested in arguing against a newly invented
strawman.
Bugzilla currently shows 64 open bugs with a darwin listed as the
target; another 5 Altivec bugs. I am concerned about the effect on
releases from increasing the priority of many of those bugs to P1 if
Darwin is a primary platform. Also, there also are a few Bugzilla bugs
assigned to Apple developers that have not seen any progress and some
features contributed by Apple don't appear to receive a lot of support.
David
