From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32169 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2002 17:46:31 -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 32138 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2002 17:46:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dragon.nuxi.com) (66.92.13.169) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2002 17:46:27 -0000 Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g3NHjrYm006492; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:45:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id g3NHia2h006425; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:44:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 11:04:00 -0000 From: "David O'Brien" To: Bryce McKinlay Cc: Toon Moene , Neil Booth , Mark Mitchell , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 3.1 Release Message-ID: <20020423104436.B2524@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.org References: <46690000.1018660657@gandalf.codesourcery.com> <20020413091819.GA16217@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> <3CB823A0.136EF4E3@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> <3CB914BD.4080007@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> <20020422192407.B10932@dragon.nuxi.com> <3CC4CA4B.4090800@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3CC4CA4B.4090800@waitaki.otago.ac.nz>; from bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 02:43:23PM +1200 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01186.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 02:43:23PM +1200, Bryce McKinlay wrote: > >>Perhaps we could go by a stable/unstable release cycle, similar to > >>Linux. > > > >Please no. I really feel this will make it harder for those producing > >products that need to include a compiler. > > Why? Presumably, BSD and Linux distributions would stick with the stable > releases for their default compilers. The unstable releases would be for > people who want to try out new features and optimizations without having We already saw with Red Hat and the H.J.Lu Binutils releases that people are not willing to wait for things to hit the "stable" releases. I feer that with the divergent stable/unstable release cycle less GCC developers will spend time on the stable releases -- instead wanting to do fresh development/changes/enhancements to the unstable release. And also that doing a stable/unstable release cycle will create longer times between when large changes can happen, thus pusuring the RE more to give less attention to the stable release cycle as it is "holding back development".