Re: Contributing LLVM.org patches to gud.el

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Richard Stallman writes:

 >   > If we try to close down every cooperation with non-GNU free
 >   > software, we are sacrificing our goals for the sake of our
 >   > temples.
 > 
 > I agree.  But is anyone proposing that?

Did anyone say it was explicitly proposed?

What is feared is that your reflexive opposition to initiatives that
you admit you don't understand ("I must study ... don't rush me")
merely because they involve LLVM *are* having a chilling effect.  And
if you can oppose something as innocuous as adding to ELPA *existing*
software (which is *already widely distributed*) merely because it
involves LLVM, that chilling effect could effectively become a freeze,
deterring *many* potential contributors and alienating users who
(think they) need the features offered by LLVM that the GNU toolchain
doesn't have.

The problem (if there really is one) is that gcc and gdb have fallen
behind (according to the testimony of a few developers).  Why waste
time in spiteful attacks on Emacs users and developers (who either
won't use lldb on principle, or who can easily add Emacs support
locally if they do use it)?  Shouldn't you be concentrating on finding
strategies for GCC and the rest of the core toolchain to recover their
technical and social leadership (not to mention determining if they
really have completely lost it)?  That's the hard problem, and one
that requires your global view of the GNU Project that, say, Stefan
does not have.

On the other hand, Stefan is quite capable of applying the simple
traditional rule of "don't advantage non-GNU software" within Emacs.

In-opposition-loyal-ly y'rs,