From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18741 invoked by alias); 12 Jan 2004 22:40:40 -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 18734 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2004 22:40:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail-out3.apple.com) (17.254.13.22) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Jan 2004 22:40:40 -0000 Received: from mailgate3.apple.com (a17-128-100-68.apple.com [17.128.100.68]) by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0CMedou021236 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:40:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from relay1.apple.com (relay1.apple.com) by mailgate3.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.6) with ESMTP id ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 14:40:39 -0800 Received: from apple.com (mrs1.apple.com [17.201.24.248]) by relay1.apple.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i0CMedrY006274; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:40:39 GMT Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 22:40:00 -0000 Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Cc: Geoffrey Keating , gcc@gcc.gnu.org To: Phil Edwards From: Mike Stump In-Reply-To: <20040110154129.GA28152@disaster.jaj.com> Message-Id: <581D27B0-4550-11D8-BCF6-003065A77310@apple.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00735.txt.bz2 On Saturday, January 10, 2004, at 07:41 AM, Phil Edwards wrote: > No, I don't know that it's a viable solution, but I'd rather try to > fix the > rules we've got than just do an end run around them. Better > suggestions > solicited. If we had 0 regressions, then we'd not have these problems. Only some of the people put in these regressions. Not being able to have a place to check in development work is bad. We want to freeze out new development work to try and encourage people to work on fixing regressions. To me, the obvious conclusion would be to have a branch for new work that only people that don't have any regressions outstanding can check into. Now, I don't know if that is a good idea or not, and I don't even know if it is possible due to an inability to know who caused the regression... but, I thought I'd put it out there for people to ponder. In time, with enough feedback, as a group, I suspect people would learn to introduce fewer regressions.