From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-156845-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29977 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2009 09:40:18 -0000
Received: (qmail 29959 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Sep 2009 09:40:17 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.7 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 27 Sep 2009 09:40:14 +0000
Received: from relay2.suse.de (mail2.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) 	by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6F1E86391; 	Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:40:11 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 19:17:00 -0000
From: Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de>
To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com>
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: <alpine.LSU.1.99.0909270020480.899@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0909271136070.4520@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>
References: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0909201433140.4520@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <alpine.LSU.1.99.0909270020480.899@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
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/msg00554.txt.bz2

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, 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.
> 
> I believe you got the math wrong in one case, when you went from
> four months that a branch will need to be maintained in the old
> model up to six months.  Is it possible you ment to substract the
> two months Stage 2 used to take instead of add it?

Indeed, I mixed in the length of stage1.  Four month would be
still about correct (2 month stage3 plus 2 month before we branch,
in the old model it was 2 month stage2 plus 2 month stage3).

> Since it seems hard to predicat the time between the end of Stage 3
> and branching, I suggest to just say "a few months".
>
> The patch below does that in its last hunk and makes one or the
> other editorial change.
> 
> Thoughts?

Ok with me.

Thanks,
Richard.