From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19213 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2002 19:00:04 -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 19117 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2002 18:59:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO gandalf.codesourcery.com) (66.60.148.227) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Apr 2002 18:59:57 -0000 Received: from gandalf.codesourcery.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gandalf.codesourcery.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3FIvOL21410; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 11:57:24 -0700 Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:01:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell To: Andreas Jaeger cc: "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: GCC 3.1 Release Message-ID: <57100000.1018897043@gandalf.codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: References: <46690000.1018660657@gandalf.codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00622.txt.bz2 --On Monday, April 15, 2002 08:56:20 PM +0200 Andreas Jaeger wrote: > Mark Mitchell writes: > > [...] > >> I have a proposal before the SC to slip the GCC 3.2 schedule even >> further; so that the first phase of GCC 3.2 development will now end >> one month beyond the release of GCC 3.1 -- June 1st -- pushing the >> GCC 3.2 release date back to October 1st so as to give people time to >> work on major changes for GCC 3.2 *after* GCC 3.1 is released. > > This means 5 month for GCC 3.2 after GCC 3.1 is released? I though we > had a 6 month cycle - and the point was to *extend* the period not to > shorten it, I was unclear. The proposal the SC is voting on is to create a 7-month cycle, as opposed to our current 6-month cycle. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com