From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
Cc: Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo@libero.it>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: GCC 3.5 Status (2004-08-29)
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:27:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4132AE25.2080900@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m37jrhw9an.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net>
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
>| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>|
>| >Making regular bug-fix releases at regularly spaced times makes good
>| >sense to me. What I'm unclear about is what we want for the *major*
>| >releases. Do we just want them every 6 months? Do we drive it by
>| >quality? If by quality, what are the quality criteria? I suspect
>| >
>| We cannot drive it purely by quality, since we will never get quality
>| unless we decide that we're going to make a release. The level of
>| bug-fixing activity goes up steeply as we approach a release: people
>| start to fear that "their" platform/language/etc. will not work well.
>| That's why we use a combination: drive by time, and then push for
>| quality towards that date.
>|
>| >| they can lead to lower quality, as more and more changes go in,
>| >| sometimes without corresponding problem-solving efforts. I also don't
>| >| think that "wait until it is ready" is a practical method for a
>| >| project this big with this much change and with so much
>| >| inter-dependency between components.
>| >
>| >Again, I agree. However, because the project is that big, I believe
>| >branching proposals should meet consensus among developers.
>| >
>| In contrast, I don't see consensus as achievable in this group. We
>
>That says a lot.
>
>
Note that I didn't say "cooperation"; I said "consensus", which means
that everyone agrees.
This is a group that cooperates well, but I don't think it's very easy
to reach consenus among groups with O(100) people. We often don't even
get consensus on technical issues; we often instead defer to a
maintainer to make a decision, or put off making one altogether. When
we do try for consensus, it's often among groups (the C++ maintainers,
people who know a lot about reload, etc.) that are at least two orders
of magnitude smaller than the group as a whole. Even the SC doesn't
always get consensus; we vote, and often have split votes.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-08-30 4:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-08-29 23:49 Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 0:03 ` Andrew Pinski
2004-08-30 0:33 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 0:53 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-08-30 0:25 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-30 0:48 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 0:57 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-30 1:04 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 1:12 ` Andrew Pinski
2004-08-30 1:29 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 10:11 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-08-30 2:46 ` Giovanni Bajo
2004-08-30 3:09 ` Matt Austern
2004-08-30 13:51 ` Speeding up C++ at -O0 (Was: GCC 3.5 Status (2004-08-29)) Giovanni Bajo
2004-08-30 18:02 ` GCC 3.5 Status (2004-08-29) Joe Buck
2004-08-30 3:32 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-08-30 4:11 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 4:17 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-08-30 4:43 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 5:09 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-08-30 5:27 ` Mark Mitchell [this message]
2004-08-30 5:30 ` Gabriel Dos Reis
2004-08-30 6:57 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 9:24 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-30 10:13 ` Giovanni Bajo
2004-08-30 10:26 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-30 16:34 ` Jan Hubicka
2004-08-30 11:02 ` Paolo Bonzini
2004-08-30 10:03 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-30 15:11 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 15:21 ` Jan Hubicka
2004-08-30 17:46 ` Jeffrey A Law
2004-08-30 1:09 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-08-30 1:53 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 7:34 ` Steven Bosscher
2004-08-30 8:15 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 14:16 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-08-30 15:10 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 3:03 ` Daniel Berlin
2004-08-30 3:20 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-31 17:35 ` Joseph S. Myers
2004-08-30 10:50 ` Dorit Naishlos
2004-08-30 15:12 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 14:26 ` Jan Hubicka
2004-08-30 15:03 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 15:05 ` Jan Hubicka
2004-08-30 17:08 ` Diego Novillo
2004-08-31 3:25 ` Devang Patel
2004-08-30 0:59 Richard Kenner
2004-08-30 4:33 Nathanael Nerode
2004-08-30 10:17 Richard Kenner
2004-08-30 14:48 ` Mark Mitchell
2004-08-30 18:08 ` Mike Stump
2004-08-30 10:44 Richard Kenner
2004-08-30 11:27 ` Laurent GUERBY
2004-08-30 13:05 ` Jakub Jelinek
2004-08-30 18:28 ` Laurent GUERBY
2004-08-30 20:04 ` Jakub Jelinek
2004-08-30 20:25 ` Laurent GUERBY
2004-08-31 5:27 ` Eric Botcazou
2004-08-31 9:42 ` Arnaud Charlet
2004-08-30 20:14 ` Florian Weimer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4132AE25.2080900@codesourcery.com \
--to=mark@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gdr@integrable-solutions.net \
--cc=giovannibajo@libero.it \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).