From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25216 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2003 01:28:49 -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 25207 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2003 01:28:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO piper.synopsys.com) (204.176.21.195) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 1 Feb 2003 01:28:48 -0000 Received: (from jbuck@localhost) by piper.synopsys.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h111Sdc26002; Fri, 31 Jan 2003 17:28:39 -0800 Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 01:28:00 -0000 From: Joe Buck To: Tom Lord Cc: mstump@apple.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4 Message-ID: <20030131172838.A25805@synopsys.com> References: <20030130181313.7d3c5820.bkoz@redhat.com> <200301311025.CAA29000@emf.net> <20030131112054.C28125@synopsys.com> <200301312311.PAA15835@emf.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <200301312311.PAA15835@emf.net>; from lord@emf.net on Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 03:11:56PM -0800 X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 03:11:56PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote: > Please see my reply to Kenner and Mark on the subject of better > alternatives. Claims that an alternative is better need to be backed up. If your "continuous release management" scheme is better, please point to a sizable free software project that uses it. If you cannot, then it may not be socially responsible to risk GCC for the sake of your experiment. As for the rest, I have no interest in any effort to "put our foot down".