From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26501 invoked by alias); 30 Mar 2004 13:10:49 -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 26491 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2004 13:10:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Mar 2004 13:10:47 -0000 Received: from uniton.integrable-solutions.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/SuSE Linux 0.6) with ESMTP id i2UBvQ9b009041; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:57:27 +0200 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id i2UBvQTf009040; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 13:57:26 +0200 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: Wolfgang Bangerth Cc: Joe Buck , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: GCC-3.3.4 release status report References: <200403291410.59630.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <200403291410.59630.bangerth@ices.utexas.edu> Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 18:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg01713.txt.bz2 Wolfgang Bangerth writes: | >On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 11:09:52AM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | >> The number of open PRs targetted for 3.3.4 has grown up to 46 | >> (from 41 last report). | > | > That is a *huge* number of bugs to attempt to fix in the fourth point | > release; an attempt to fix even half that number will probably result in | > 3.3.4 being less stable than 3.3.3. | | Indeed. My feeling is that way too many patches are going into 3.3.4 without | any analysis as to the risk of them. I believe that is too much a strong statement. No patch is blindly applied to GCC-3.3.4 If your point is that any single patch has a potential risk for unconvering other bugs, yes that is true and I'm well aware of that. By the very nature of GCC, it is not always easy to tell *all* the implications that any arbitrary patch will have, as side-effects. The easiest and not very useful, IMO, position would be to close the branch. After all, that is what had been decided. But, I think there are room for improvements; I accept patches based on their contents, descriptions of the problems they address and impacts, and inputs from various maintainers. I could come tomorrow with a release note saying that only two PRs are targetted for 3.3.4; I doubt that would make GCC-3.3.4 better than it looks now. I could also come and say I have 100 open PRs for GCC-3.3.4; I doubt it would make GCC-3.3.4 worse than it is now. -- Gaby