RE: your gcc 3.1 release date is a joke

RE: your gcc 3.1 release date is a joke

[Ben Woodhead]

Hello Everybody

I am not part of your developers list although I do read though it as much as 
possible.. I really have to say that people are funny.. I ran a project 
related to 3d graphics, and I always got messages saying stuff like you don't 
update the news often enough (2 time a day was not good), or what ever and I 
was always amazed that people not willing to help are still willing to 
bitch.. The one good thing about free software and such is that you don't 
have to be nice to the a**holes that say stuff like this.. HEHHEHEE.. I see 
what he means it would be nice for someone to actually put something on the 
news that says the release has slipped and we will post a new release date as 
soon as we know.. But that is not manditory, you can easily find this 
information in the mailing lists.. I am having a hard time typing, because I 
a laughing to much.. For everybody here, ready my last quote on the bottom of 
my message...

Later, Ben

> hello,
> 
> please allow me to write exactly this lines to you. i know you are
> all doing a nice job on gcc 3.1 but i feel fooled by your gcc maintainer
> a lot of date shifts 14th april to 1st may then it was said to be
> released in the next days, last weekend mark mitchell said that he is
> doing the packages after weekend and now we have wednesday. either you
> are fooling us or you are doing this to get time to fix other shit.
> either you fucking hell release that damn gcc 3.1 that i am waiting
> for - for over a month now that i really like to have or if the work
> is to hard for you (like life of a maintainer beeing hard) then hand
> over the work to someone else who is capable to NOT pissoff their
> people.


-- 
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
 simpler" - Albert Einstein

"Its Free, so if it breaks, you can keep all the peices.. "

PATCH for Re: your gcc 3.1 release date is a joke

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Wed, 15 May 2002, Klaus Berger wrote:
> [...] fooling us or you are doing this to get time to fix other shit.
> either you fucking hell release that damn gcc 3.1 that i am waiting for
> - for over a month now that i really like to have or if the work is to
> hard for you (like life of a maintainer beeing hard) then hand over the
> work to someone else who is capable to NOT pissoff their people.

Thanks for your many valuable contributions to GCC.  Not.

On Wed, 15 May 2002, Ben Woodhead wrote:
> I see what he means it would be nice for someone to actually put
> something on the news that says the release has slipped and we will post
> a new release date as soon as we know..

Given that the release tarballs are being distributed all over the world
as I'm typing this, we can probably skip this. :-)  (Though I agree with
you in principle!)

And, to actually wring a benefit from Klaus' flame, I have committed
the patch below.

Gerald

Index: develop.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/develop.html,v
retrieving revision 1.12
diff -u -3 -p -r1.12 develop.html
--- develop.html	16 Apr 2002 13:41:45 -0000	1.12
+++ develop.html	15 May 2002 17:38:58 -0000
@@ -216,8 +216,9 @@ spending undue amounts of time on releas

 <h3><a name="future">Calendar</a></h3>

-<p>Here is a timeline of recent and upcoming branchpoints (for releases,
-stages of development, bugfixes, etc), resulting from the development plan:</p>
+<p>Here is a history of recent and a <em>tentative</em> timeline of upcoming
+stages of development, branch points, and releases:</p>
+
 <pre>

   ... former releases ...
@@ -243,7 +244,7 @@ stages of development, bugfixes, etc), r
        +-- GCC 3.1 branch created -------------+
        |                                        \
        v                                         v
-  GCC 3.2 Stage 1 (ends Apr 15 2002)          GCC 3.1 release (Apr 15 2002)
+  GCC 3.2 Stage 1 (ends Apr 15 2002)          GCC 3.1 release (May 15 2002)
        |                                           \
        v                                            v
   GCC 3.2 Stage 2 (ends Jun 15 2002)          GCC 3.1.1 release (Jun 15 2002)

Re: PATCH for Re: your gcc 3.1 release date is a joke

[Adam Megacz]

Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at> writes:
> +  GCC 3.2 Stage 1 (ends Apr 15 2002)          GCC 3.1 release (May 15 2002)

I have a libgcj patch that has been approved for 3.1.1 (but not for
3.1) -- is it okay to commit it to 3.1_branch now?

  - a


-- 
The web is dead; long live the Internet.
http://www.xwt.org/

Re: PATCH for Re: your gcc 3.1 release date is a joke

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On 15 May 2002, Adam Megacz wrote:
> I have a libgcj patch that has been approved for 3.1.1 (but not for
> 3.1) -- is it okay to commit it to 3.1_branch now?

If it matches the criteria listed in
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-05/msg01212.html
then yes.

(Note that I added a link to that from our main page...)

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/