From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3527 invoked by alias); 17 May 2002 20:40:56 -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 3520 invoked from network); 17 May 2002 20:40:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 May 2002 20:40:54 -0000 Received: from pcp736370pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net ([68.48.241.178]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 178oX0-0000zl-00 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:40:54 -0400 Received: (from tim@localhost) by pcp736370pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA04982; Fri, 17 May 2002 16:46:36 -0400 Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:40:00 -0000 From: Tim Hollebeek To: Daniel Berlin Cc: Robert Dewar , gcc@gnu.org, klausberger@email.com Subject: Re: your gcc 3.1 release date is a joke Message-ID: <20020517164636.A4967@pcp736370pcs.reston01.va.comcast.net> Reply-To: tim@hollebeek.com References: <20020515112428.75736F2942@nile.gnat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg01540.txt.bz2 > We was just kiddin, y'all. We're way too stupid and lazy (after > all, the life of a maintainer is very easy) to get a release out on time. > Hopefully we'll get it done by 2004. It all depends on klaus berger > , who has generously volunteered to fix all > remaining bugs." And of course, this should all be blamed on it being open source. After all, release dates for commercial software NEVER slip. Right? =) Kudos for gcc for attempting a regular release schedule. It'll get easier as people get used to it, I'm sure ... -Tim