From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-116569-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30287 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2005 21:57:57 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
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
Received: (qmail 30182 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jun 2005 21:57:47 -0000
Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23)
    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:57:47 +0000
Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225])
	by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5TLvjU8023156;
	Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relay2.apple.com (relay2.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com 
    (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.17) with ESMTP id 
    <T71d503429a118064e11ec@mailgate1.apple.com>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:57:45 
    -0700
Received: from ap0101q-dhcp110.apple.com ([17.219.205.1]) by relay2.apple.com 
    (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5TLvg3C021076; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:57:43 
    -0700 (PDT)
Received: by greed.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 7382F55CCC3; Wed, 29 
    Jun 2005 14:32:00 -0700 (PDT)
To: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
Cc: tromey@redhat.com, Java Patch List <java-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
        gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re:
References: <m3d5q5b0pw.fsf@localhost.localdomain> 
    <42C2ECA9.3050707@redhat.com> <42C30712.5070109@codesourcery.com>
From: Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 21:57:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <42C30712.5070109@codesourcery.com>
Message-ID: <m2slz0kfxs.fsf@geoffk.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg01280.txt.bz2

Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

> Bryce McKinlay wrote:
> 
> > Mark,
> 
> > Could we get an exemption from the freeze rules for low-risk,
> > runtime only libgcj fixes as determined by the libgcj maintainers?
> 
> I don't think we want to do that.
> 
> First, we're close to a release.  We've been waiting on one fix since
> Friday, and Jeff Law has promised to fix it today.
> 
> Second, the whole point of freezes is to ensure stability.  We're
> going to RC3 on this release because we've found bad problems in RC1
> and RC2. If a change were to be checked in, for whatever reason,
> happens to break something, then we need an RC4, and everybody loses.

This kind of conflict is solved in version control systems by the use
of branches...