Stage 3 question

Stage 3 question

[Paul Koning]

Question on what's appropriate...

The doc section on machine dependent constraints is missing the PDP-11 ones.  Is that sort of doc change ok for stage 3?  Can I make that as a target maintainer (it says that this covers "documentation for the port" which I assume means this kind of content, right)?

Thanks,
	paul

Re: Stage 3 question

[Andrew Pinski]

On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Paul Koning <paul_koning@dell.com> wrote:
> Question on what's appropriate...
>
> The doc section on machine dependent constraints is missing the PDP-11 ones.  Is that sort of doc change ok for stage 3?  Can I make that as a target maintainer (it says that this covers "documentation for the port" which I assume means this kind of content, right)?

Documentation changes are always accepted even in the "stage 4".

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

Re: Stage 3 question

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Paul Koning <paul_koning@dell.com> wrote:
>> Question on what's appropriate...
>>
>> The doc section on machine dependent constraints is missing the PDP-11 ones.  Is that sort of doc change ok for stage 3?  Can I make that as a target maintainer (it says that this covers "documentation for the port" which I assume means this kind of content, right)?
>
> Documentation changes are always accepted even in the "stage 4".

And, yes, as a target maintainer you can also change the documentation
specific to the port.

Ian

Re: Stage 3 question

[Paul Koning]

On Nov 3, 2010, at 4:02 PM, Paul Koning wrote:

> Question on what's appropriate...

More on the same topic: sometimes the words are "bug fixes" and sometimes "regressions".  I tend to think of regressions as "it worked in version x-1 but it's broken in x".  Are long-standing bugs also fair game in stage 3?  Does a bug need to be in bugz to be considered?

	paul

Re: Stage 3 question

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Fri, 5 Nov 2010, Paul Koning wrote:

> On Nov 3, 2010, at 4:02 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
> 
> > Question on what's appropriate...
> 
> More on the same topic: sometimes the words are "bug fixes" and 
> sometimes "regressions".  I tend to think of regressions as "it worked 
> in version x-1 but it's broken in x".  Are long-standing bugs also fair 
> game in stage 3?  Does a bug need to be in bugz to be considered?

Stage 3 is for bug fixes (whether or not in Bugzilla), it's stage 4 that's 
regression fixes only.  When you maintain a back end that is not a primary 
or secondary target in gcc-4.6/criteria.html, or a front end other than 
the C and C++ front ends considered in the criteria, you have essentially 
free rein to decide what goes in your part of the compiler during Stages 3 
and 4, whether or not bug or regression fixes - the other side of that is 
that if you make major changes that destabilise such a back end or front 
end then we won't delay branching to allow for them to be fixed, and 
non-bug-fix front-end changes that break the default build for a primary 
or secondary target are liable to be reverted.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com