From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16126 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2004 23:49:30 -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 16119 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2004 23:49:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.9) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Jan 2004 23:49:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 887 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2004 23:49:11 -0000 Received: from 227.148-60-66-fuji-dsl.static.surewest.net (HELO minax.codesourcery.com) (mitchell@66.60.148.227) by mail.codesourcery.com with SMTP; 12 Jan 2004 23:49:11 -0000 Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal From: Mark Mitchell To: Geoff Keating Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Phil Edwards In-Reply-To: References: <90200277-4301-11D8-BDBD-000A95B1F520@apple.com> <20040110002526.GA13568@disaster.jaj.com> <82D6F34E-4306-11D8-BDBD-000A95B1F520@apple.com> <20040110154129.GA28152@disaster.jaj.com> <1073935323.3458.42.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC Message-Id: <1073951351.3458.162.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 23:49:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00741.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 15:42, Geoff Keating wrote: > On Jan 12, 2004, at 11:22 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > > I'll make you a deal -- if you will commit to fixing five Bugzilla > > regressions between now and January 31st, and five more after the > > branch > > is made, then I'll create the branch on January 31st, come hell or high > > water. Deal? > > I think January 31 would be too long to wait, sorry. No counter-offer? :-) By the way, there's no question that there will be chaos when we finally do branch, and everyone starts putting stuff in for 3.5. That's actually what's supposed to happen in Stage 1. :-) I completely agree with Phil, however, that creating a proxy-mainline is inappropriate. Apple (and some other vendors, including CodeSourcery) is in the position of doing its own release management and bug-fixing based on various versions of GCC. Therefore, having high-quality FSF releases may not make much of a difference to Apple; Apple doesn't use it directly anyhow. (Of course I do not know what Apple's management wants in this respect, nor do I know what your personal motivations might be, independently of your Apple employeeship.) These releases, however, are FSF releases, and they should be of the same high quality as the FSF releases for other packages, such as Emacs or GNU Awk. Unless the SC says otherwise, of course. :-) -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC