From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-67475-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8530 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2003 21:02:27 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 8520 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2003 21:02:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.129.200.2)
  by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2003 21:02:27 -0000
Received: from lincoln.constant.com (tooth.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.29])
	by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 3AD4B800088; Mon,  3 Feb 2003 16:02:26 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:02:00 -0000
From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com>
To: tromey@redhat.com
Cc: dje@watson.ibm.com, jbuck@synopsys.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org,
	bkoz@redhat.com, mark@codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4
Message-Id: <20030203150151.132ac454.bkoz@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <87isw1p0k9.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
References: <200301312121.QAA22864@makai.watson.ibm.com>
	<87isw1p0k9.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00124.txt.bz2

On 03 Feb 2003 13:32:38 -0700
Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:

>This sounds good to me.  What's the next step?  Maybe suggest a patch
>to the development plan?

Sounds good to me. 

Do you think it sounds like a good idea to try and fit this new process
into 3.4? Ie, pick what branches get merged for it?

-benjamin