From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27545 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2002 19:13:23 -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 27538 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2002 19:13:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.cs.tu-berlin.de) (130.149.17.13) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Apr 2002 19:13:22 -0000 Received: from platon.cs.tu-berlin.de (matzmich@platon.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.25.107]) by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA15090; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:11:03 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from matzmich@localhost) by platon.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) id VAA21358; Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:11:02 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:13:00 -0000 From: Michael Matz X-X-Sender: To: Mark Mitchell cc: Andreas Jaeger , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: GCC 3.1 Release In-Reply-To: <57100000.1018897043@gandalf.codesourcery.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00624.txt.bz2 Hi, On Mon, 15 Apr 2002, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > 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. So, you meant actually to push back the _release_ of 3.2 to january 1st, right? (June + 7 == 13) Or you already included the month from May to June into those 7 months? Then you meant december 1st? But certainly not october, right? Ciao, Michael.