>FWIW though I think GCC is really playing with fire when it comes to it's future - the mailing list approach to development deters new contributors, the testing infrastructure is quite arcane, etc.
And LLVM is better? At the start of last year I found and fixed a small bug in LLVM[1]. I submitted the fix via their Phabricator instance and it was approved by project members after a few days. As per the contributor guide, I then asked for a project member to commit my patch to the LLVM repository. This is because in Phabricator there does not appear to be an automatic way to commit approved changes. A project member has to manually take the patch and apply it.
A few weeks ago I tried to see what happened to my patch and found that it had never been applied. So basically my work and that of the reviewers was simply lost because of their infrastructure.
And LLVM is better? At the start of last year I found and fixed a small bug in LLVM[1]. I submitted the fix via their Phabricator instance and it was approved by project members after a few days. As per the contributor guide, I then asked for a project member to commit my patch to the LLVM repository. This is because in Phabricator there does not appear to be an automatic way to commit approved changes. A project member has to manually take the patch and apply it.
A few weeks ago I tried to see what happened to my patch and found that it had never been applied. So basically my work and that of the reviewers was simply lost because of their infrastructure.
[1] https://reviews.llvm.org/D96334