From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10330 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2002 22:16:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10316 invoked by uid 71); 13 Dec 2002 22:16:02 -0000 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 14:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021213221602.10315.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Wolfgang Bangerth Subject: What to do with usual bug fixes vs. the branch (Was: Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules) Reply-To: Wolfgang Bangerth X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00784.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c++/8931; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Wolfgang Bangerth To: Gabriel Dos Reis Cc: gcc@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