From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-156681-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 31758 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2009 19:50:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 31740 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Sep 2009 19:50:14 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.7 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from cantor.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:50:08 +0000
Received: from relay1.suse.de (mail2.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) 	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) 	(No client certificate requested) 	by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBD865362F; 	Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:50:05 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 19:50:00 -0000
From: Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
To: Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore.Papadopoulo@sophia.inria.fr>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, 	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, 	"Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>, 	Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adjust develop.html to reflect recent practice
In-Reply-To: <4AB6851C.2070005@sophia.inria.fr>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0909202148510.4520@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>
References: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0909201433140.4520@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <4AB6851C.2070005@sophia.inria.fr>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00390.txt.bz2

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:

> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > As commented to my last status report develop.html does not reflect
> > reality anymore.  The following tries to adjust it carefully in
> > this respect.
> > 
> >   <h3>Schedule</h3>
> >  -<p>Development on our main branch will proceed in three stages.  Each
> > -stage will be two months in length.</p>
> > +<p>Development on our main branch will proceed in three stages.</p>
> Just a minor tweak...
> Since there are only effectively two stages, wouldn't it be better to state
> two stages here ?

Effectively after leaving Stage 3 we enter a "Stage 4" before the
release branch is created.  So all, two, three and four would be
in some way correct ;)  Thus I didn't bother to change this detail.

Richard.