> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 5:42 AM > From: "Jeff Law" <jeffreya...@gmail.com> > To: "Christopher Dimech" <dim...@gmx.com>, "Toon Moene" <t...@moene.org> > Cc: "Richard Biener" <richard.guent...@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Wakely" > <jwakely....@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, "Thomas > Koenig" <tkoe...@netcologne.de> > Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > > > On 4/14/2021 10:55 AM, Christopher Dimech wrote: > >> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 4:35 AM > >> From: "Toon Moene" <t...@moene.org> > >> To: "Jeff Law" <jeffreya...@gmail.com>, "Richard Biener" > >> <richard.guent...@gmail.com>, "Jonathan Wakely" <jwakely....@gmail.com>, > >> "Jonathan Wakely via Gcc" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, "Thomas Koenig" > >> <tkoe...@netcologne.de> > >> Subject: Re: GCC association with the FSF > >> > >> On 4/14/21 6:18 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc wrote: > >> > >>> On 4/14/2021 6:08 AM, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote: > >>>> On April 14, 2021 12:19:16 PM GMT+02:00, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc > >>>> <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >>>>> N.B. Jeff is no longer @redhat.com so I've changed the CC > >>>>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 11:03, Thomas Koenig <tkoe...@netcologne.de> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> - All gfortran developers move to the new branch. This will not > >>>>>> happen, I can guarantee you that. > >>>>> This is the part I'm curious about (the rest is obvious, it follows > >>>> >from there being finite resources and the nature of any fork). But I'm > >>>>> not going to press for reasons. > >>>> Note the only viable fork will be on the current hosting (which isn't > >>>> FSF controlled) with the downside of eventually losing the gcc.gnu.org > >>>> DNS and thus a need to "switch" to a sourceware.org name. > >>> I strongly suspect you're right here. Ultimately if one fork reaches > >>> critical mass, then it survives and the other dies. That's a function > >>> of the developer community. Right now I don't see the nightmare > >>> scenario of both forks being viable playing out -- however I'm more > >>> concerned now than I was before due Thomas's comments. > >> When plans for the EGCS were underway, and the (then) Fortran supporters > >> were into the plans, it scared the hell out of me, because it was > >> completely unclear to me where it would end. > >> > >> But in the end: I am a supporter of Free Software, not a organization, > >> or a person, but *developers* who support Free Software. > >> > >> That's what got me to go for the fork of EGCS - and I have not been > >> disappointed. > >> > >> -- > >> Toon Moene - e-mail: t...@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290 > >> Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands > > The two projects once again united because multiple forks are proved to be > > inefficient and unwieldy. As long as the license terms for free software > > are met and there is compatibility, I am pleased. > > Umm, no. The projects re-united because the FSF fork wasn't viable and > we structured EGCS so that if it was successful it could supplant the > FSF fork. Toon, myself and others were part of that process.
Would you consider the current situation as separate still? It seems that some coordination is needed, irrespective of disagreement, if there is to be a future in all this. Had asked Thomas Koenig for details which I could follow very clearly. He talked sense to me. > jeff > >
