Re: [rfa] FRV input files

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 04:02:23PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Sat, May 10, 2003 at 01:50:13PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>>Thank you.  That's all I wanted you to do.  Binutils _already uses
> >>>files generated from frv CGEN input_.  You can go look at it yourself,
> >>>in opcodes/.  So if you're going to contribute a different version of
> >>>the file
> >
> >>
> >>I don't like the implication here.
> >>
> >>If I were to contribute a version of a file that contains code changes 
> >>that impact on other parts of FSF's binutils, I would indicate that up 
> >>front.
> >>
> >>Similarly, if I were to apply a license that in anyway varied from the 
> >>GPL, I'll also indicate that up front.
> >
> >
> >However, since that was obviously the concern - and a reasonable one,
> 
> Which?  The contents, or the license?  No one, other than you, expressed 
> concern over the contents of the file.  Doug even posted a diff.

Sorry then.  I don't remember seeing him do that.

> >since you never phrased your patch in such a way as to say the copies
> >were the same - then it behooves you to say that there are no changes.
> 
> So you think I would engage in unhanded activity such as silently and 
> intentionally modifying a file so that the FSF couldn't rebuild it's 
> sources?  Bizare.

Never mind.  I'll stop trying to be helpful.

> >Your message said nothing about acknowledging the copy of the code
> >already in src.  In fact, I remember you saying it actually came from
> >an internal tree.  The reason for my concern should be obvious.
> 
> I posted that bit of trivia (only moments ago) because it highlights the 
> sillyness of this entire part of the thread.  Should I also mention 
> which internal repository I got the file from (never know, there might 
> be more than one ... :-)?  If you were really so worried about me doing 
> something underhanded, why didn't you yourself take the 30 seconds 
> needed to do a diff (might want to do that anyway, never know .... ;-)?

Damn it, Andrew, I'm not accusing you of anything.  I was originally
concerned that since you deliberately didn't mention that this copy was
the same, that you were taking it from an internal repository which had
some differences from the current code, and maybe you weren't aware
there was already a copy in use.  My point was not that I couldn't do
the diff myself.  In fact, I did.  I wanted you to do it and to post
it, to clear the issue.

> The only important thing here is that this file is [finally] being 
> contributed to the FSF, and that one tiny bit of the mess that Jim 
> Wilson refered to is been resolved.  Beer!!

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer