Re: Updating to Autoconf 2.5x

[Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>,Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>]

On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 04:38:36PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
>On Jun  9, 2003, Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>I agree.  It's sort of odd to have important gcc issues like this
>>>talked about somewhere outside of the gcc.gnu.org domain.
>
>On Mon, Jun 09, 2003 at 07:58:30PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>>I've always wanted us to have toplevel@ or
>>configure@sources.redhat.com, for all projects hosted in s.r.c., and
>>GCC too, just because GCC shares most of the top-level files with that.
>>Can't we go ahead and create one of these lists, in which we'll discuss
>>not only this transition, but also any patches that affect the top
>>level alone?
>
>So first Christopher objects to a list having @codesourcery.com at the
>end,

And your point is?  That I have ulterior motives since I have redhat.com
in my email address?  If so, you missed the opportunity to note that I
was agreeing with Andrew Cagney, also a Red Hat employee.

>and now Alexandre wants @redhat.com at the end?

Yes.  Definitely a conspiracy.

>Thanks to both companies for giving us so much free software work, but
>let's avoid any company conflicts by avoiding use of either company's
>domain as much as we can, OK?  To do otherwise will just confuse people
>into thinking that something is a single-company effort, when it is
>not.

For the record, my point was that gcc discussions should be coming from
the gcc.gnu.org domain.  There is no reason to single me out as some
kind of Red Hat chauvinist when I was not suggesting that the list have
a redhat.com in the domain.  If you are objecting to the fact that any
mailing list created at gcc.gnu.org would have a redhat.com in the
headers, then you should say that and be clear about it rather than
confusing the issue.

Just so *I* am clear: despite your supposed claim of objectivity (to me
saying "I am objective" is nearly the same thing as saying "I am
humble"), I object to what you are insinuating here.  You don't know me.
You have no right to characterize my opinion as being anything other
than what you read at face value.  You could easily have made your point
without your "So first...  and now..." It added nothing to your argument
other than the suggestion some kind of collusion between Red Hat
employees.

Btw, when you thank Cygnus/Red Hat for all that they've done for
gcc/binutils/gdb, be sure to include the not insubstantial cost of
bandwidth and computer power for hosting the site.

cgf