public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* What to do with usual bug fixes vs. the branch (Was: Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules)
@ 2002-12-13 14:16 Wolfgang Bangerth
  0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Wolfgang Bangerth @ 2002-12-13 14:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: nobody; +Cc: gcc-prs

The following reply was made to PR c++/8931; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>, <sebor@roguewave.com>,
   <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: What to do with usual bug fixes vs. the branch (Was: Re: c++/8931:
 g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:09:05 -0600 (CST)

 > | - given the really *large* number of open bug reports, I think the scarce
 > |   bug fixing resources gcc has serve the community better in the long term
 > |   if we let them focus on 3.3, rather than spending time backporting 
 > |   fixes. This way we might get 3.3 out earlier, which will certainly be 
 > |   better than any 3.2.2.
 > 
 > I'm not suggesting people spend their time backporting every
 > imaginable patch that happens to fix some bug on mainline.  There are
 > bug-fix patches that don't need any particular action than running
 > patch + regtesting.  I'm obvisouly talking of such patches.
 
 I don't argue against that. I merely stated some points that I see when 
 working on the bug database. 
 
 
 > Or we could just make it clear that 3.2 branch is dead and have people
 > not  bothering about it.  That way, we could expect people focus
 > mainly on 3.3:  That would have the effect of saving any effort on 3.2
 > branch and make user clearly know that they should not expect anything
 > about 3.2.2.  That way, we could perhaps have 3.3 earlier.  It would
 > certainly be better than 3.2.2 since the latter would be non-existent.
 
 If 3.3 would come out not too long after 3.2.2, why not? (But I understand 
 that it is hard to predict release dates.)
 
 W.
 
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Wolfgang Bangerth              email:           bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                                www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth
 
 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] only message in thread

only message in thread, other threads:[~2002-12-13 22:16 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: (only message) (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-12-13 14:16 What to do with usual bug fixes vs. the branch (Was: Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules) Wolfgang Bangerth

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).