From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16859 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2008 13:11:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 16845 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Mar 2008 13:11:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (HELO wf-out-1314.google.com) (209.85.200.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:11:13 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so3694568wfc.14 for ; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.164.19 with SMTP id r19mr4060962wfo.179.1205413871645; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.86.17 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Mar 2008 06:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <84fc9c000803130611t7c68d0e7p99293b967dbe49c5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:11:00 -0000 From: "Richard Guenther" To: "Gerald Pfeifer" Subject: Re: Status of the 4.1 branch Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" , "Andreas Tobler" , "GCC Patches" , bkorb@gnu.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <47C50AB2.7000002@fgznet.ch> <47C5B89F.5000403@fgznet.ch> <84fc9c000802271437x4809fd39p77a9bc1292a9dc61@mail.gmail.com> <000d01c88237$1e92d2d0$6401a8c0@glap> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg00800.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 9 Mar 2008, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > > Is it time to close the 4.1 branch? We have four active branches at > > the moment, which is probably too many. > > The question is if anyone is using that branch. If someone is, and > would keep maintaining the branch locally (or as a different branch > in the gcc.gnu.org SVN) I guess it's neutral. If more than one party > is using it, it seems preferrably to keep this in the open. > > I could stop doing weekly snapshots and only run one upon specific > request. > > Again, I don't have a personal preference either way, so I'm looking > for input. :-) I think the question is more about how to handle bugzilla with respect to 4.1. If the conclusion is that we want to get rid of the 4.1 regression markers and thus close remaining 4.1 only bugs as WONTFIX then we should officially close the branch. If people still want to publically maintain it by for example backporting patches then they could do so on a branch on top of the last rev of the 4.1 branch. Richard.