Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: Revised release criteria for GCC 4.0

[Bernardo Innocenti]

Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Joerg Wunsch wrote:

> > What's their CVS [commit] access policy?
>
> gcc/binutils/gdb rules are very strict.  All developers
> must sign FSF papers before you legally significant
> patches can be committed.
>
> After a few good patches have been approved and committed
> by regular maintainers, a developer can ask for CVS write
> access and get an account.  He's still required to get
> non-obvious patches reviewed and approved before committing.
>
> Newlib is perhaps not subject to the same rules.  It's even
> under a BSDish license.  Judging from CVS activity, it receives
> very little new development, but of course it's being bugfixed
> and maintained as needed to keep it working on all supported
> targets.

Looking at newlib's home-page (http://sources.redhat.com/newlib/),
I see newlib's contribution policy is much friendlier than the
typical FSF project:

Newlib thrives on net contributions from people like you. We're looking for 
contributions of code, bugfixes, optimizations, documentation updates, web page 
improvements, etc. A nice testsuite to automate the testing of newlib is also 
needed. Contributions are currently done by posting patches and ideas to 
address@hidden; check out the mailing list section to find out more.

Reading through the mailing-list, though, it appears they use
a kind of formal review/approval process similar to GCC's.
(which I don't dislike at all, I recommend it to any project
because it greatly increases code quality).

--
 // Bernardo Innocenti - Develer S.r.l., R&D dept.
\X/  http://www.develer.com/