From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12518 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2003 21:42:28 -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 12460 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2003 21:42:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO uniton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 3 Feb 2003 21:42:26 -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 h13LfdH2013189; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 22:41:39 +0100 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by uniton.integrable-solutions.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id h13Lfcgx013188; Mon, 3 Feb 2003 22:41:38 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: uniton.integrable-solutions.net: gdr set sender to gdr@integrable-solutions.net using -f To: Mark Mitchell Cc: Benjamin Kosnik , "tromey@redhat.com" , "dje@watson.ibm.com" , "jbuck@synopsys.com" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: GCC 3.3, GCC 3.4 References: <82150000.1044307509@warlock.codesourcery.com> From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: <82150000.1044307509@warlock.codesourcery.com> Organization: Integrable Solutions Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 21:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00134.txt.bz2 Mark Mitchell writes: | --On Monday, February 03, 2003 10:16:51 PM +0100 Gabriel Dos Reis | wrote: | | > In parallel, we may have an experimental | > branch in stage 1 for more than 4 months... | | Unfortunately, this is how we get weird releases of GCC not based on | any FSF release. [...] | However, this is not a simple problem. It is one I have spent a lot | of time thinking about and a lot of time talking to people about. | | It is over-constrained, and no matter what we do there will be | some unhappy people. I believe the current plan is overly constrained. That is what most of the people have been trying to phrase. If we don't address that issue now, we'll find ourselves reopening the same debate over and over. If we don't address that problem now, I think we may see major contributors asking for extending schedules, over and over. I know you have been doing a terrific work. On the other hand, I believe some people are feeling uneasy with not knowing exactly where they're going, what they'll get in the end. That is not meant to criticize you. -- Gaby