From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13145 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2004 19:34:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12874 invoked from network); 23 Nov 2004 19:34:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 23 Nov 2004 19:34:42 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA21453; Tue, 23 Nov 04 14:39:08 EST Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:05:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10411231939.AA21453@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: Joe.Buck@synopsys.com Subject: Re: Mainline in regression-fix mode after Thanksgiving Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00842.txt.bz2 After all, we have an alternative: if a patch causes regressions and this isn't promptly fixed, the patch can be reverted. But this isn't an alternative in the case being discussed, where the patch causing the regression might have been checked in months ago. There may very well be patches applied on top of that patch or other patches that depend on that patch. Reverting an old patch can easily cause more regressions that the patch itself caused.