* 1.0.2 and 1.1 releases
@ 1998-02-15 9:21 Mark Mitchell
1998-02-15 9:29 ` Jeffrey A Law
1998-02-15 11:52 ` Joe Buck
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Mark Mitchell @ 1998-02-15 9:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: egcs
I'm a bit concerned about the 1.0.2 release. In particular, we all
have our pet peeves about 1.0.1. For HJ, it's that certain things
don't work well on Linux, for me that certain C++ features cause
crashes that we have since fixed, and we have to keep answering
questions about the crashes, and for others I am sure there are other
bug-a-boos.
I think that there have been so many improvements since 1.0 that the
right thing to do is get 1.0.2 out, fixing any truly egregious and
horrible bugs that can be fixed with very simple changes (that's two
criteria!), and then get 1.1 out pretty soon.
My 2 cents,
--
Mark Mitchell mmitchell@usa.net
Stanford University http://www.stanford.edu
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: 1.0.2 and 1.1 releases
1998-02-15 9:21 1.0.2 and 1.1 releases Mark Mitchell
@ 1998-02-15 9:29 ` Jeffrey A Law
1998-02-15 11:52 ` Joe Buck
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jeffrey A Law @ 1998-02-15 9:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mmitchell; +Cc: egcs
In message < 199802150924.JAA24175@quickstep.stanford.edu >you write:
> I'm a bit concerned about the 1.0.2 release. In particular, we all
> have our pet peeves about 1.0.1. For HJ, it's that certain things
> don't work well on Linux, for me that certain C++ features cause
> crashes that we have since fixed, and we have to keep answering
> questions about the crashes, and for others I am sure there are other
> bug-a-boos.
Yup. It's always a tricky line to walk for minor releases -- what
bugs do you try and fix..
> I think that there have been so many improvements since 1.0 that the
> right thing to do is get 1.0.2 out, fixing any truly egregious and
> horrible bugs that can be fixed with very simple changes (that's two
> criteria!), and then get 1.1 out pretty soon.
That's kind of my thoughts too. Get 1.0.2 out the door, then start
working towards a 1.1 release. Great minds think alike :-)
jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: 1.0.2 and 1.1 releases
1998-02-15 9:21 1.0.2 and 1.1 releases Mark Mitchell
1998-02-15 9:29 ` Jeffrey A Law
@ 1998-02-15 11:52 ` Joe Buck
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Joe Buck @ 1998-02-15 11:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: mmitchell; +Cc: egcs
> I'm a bit concerned about the 1.0.2 release. In particular, we all
> have our pet peeves about 1.0.1. For HJ, it's that certain things
> don't work well on Linux, for me that certain C++ features cause
> crashes that we have since fixed, and we have to keep answering
> questions about the crashes, and for others I am sure there are other
> bug-a-boos.
I think that basic functionality on Linux should be fixed, as should
compiler crashes that can be fixed by a small change, and everything else
should wait. I think that this is not too different from what Mark is
saying.
> I think that there have been so many improvements since 1.0 that the
> right thing to do is get 1.0.2 out, fixing any truly egregious and
> horrible bugs that can be fixed with very simple changes (that's two
> criteria!), and then get 1.1 out pretty soon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1998-02-15 11:52 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1998-02-15 9:21 1.0.2 and 1.1 releases Mark Mitchell
1998-02-15 9:29 ` Jeffrey A Law
1998-02-15 11:52 ` Joe Buck
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).