From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19068 invoked by alias); 17 Jul 2003 17:43:16 -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 19061 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2003 17:43:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.73.237.138) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jul 2003 17:43:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 15873 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2003 17:41:53 -0000 Received: from 227.148-60-66-fuji-dsl.static.surewest.net (HELO admin.codesourcery.com) (mitchell@66.60.148.227) by mail.codesourcery.com with SMTP; 17 Jul 2003 17:41:53 -0000 Subject: Re: Release criteria (was: PATCH for Re: Solaris 8/SPARC bootstrap broken building 64-bit libgcc) From: Mark Mitchell To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: Rainer Orth , gcc@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: References: <1057588191.3384.2.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <16139.18358.209462.246169@xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC Message-Id: <1058463795.3147.53.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:12:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg01329.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2003-07-14 at 07:48, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > [ gcc->gcc-patches, Cc: trimmed ] > > On Wed, 9 Jul 2003, Rainer Orth wrote: > > Besides, aside from news.html (with a link to gcc-3.1/criteria.html), there > > seems to be no link to any of those criteria.html files at all ;-( They > > certainly need to be linked somewhere so this information is not only found > > by accident. > > I intentionally didn't link any criterial.html file from a prominent place > because it was clear (to me) that the criteria were not really up-to-date > and we were not taking them really serious as far as performing the various > tests are concerned. > > That's something we should revisit for 3.4 after 3.3.1 is out the door, > and in fact I suspect that Mark will want to suggest some updated criteria > for GCC 3.4, so I think we ought to defer the creating of > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.4/criteria.html > until then. I agree. I think those criteria are good, but think that the reality is that we do not have sufficient resources to meet those criteria. We should come up with a scaled-back version that represents something that we can do with the resources that we have available. The good news is that high bandwidth and our open model are getting us a lot of testing. That, together with the *very* good triage work being done by people processing incoming bugzilla data, is giving me a lot more confidence in the quality of our software. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC