From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 403 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2002 02:50:17 -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 388 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2002 02:50:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO soliton.integrable-solutions.net) (62.212.99.186) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2002 02:50:14 -0000 Received: (from gdr@localhost) by soliton.integrable-solutions.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/SuSE Linux 0.5) id g982npv02819; Tue, 8 Oct 2002 04:49:51 +0200 To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Bug tracking / Release Quality Assurance References: From: Gabriel Dos Reis In-Reply-To: Gerald Pfeifer's message of "Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:03:28 +0200 (CEST)" Organization: Integrable Solutions Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:43:00 -0000 Message-ID: X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00449.txt.bz2 Gerald Pfeifer writes: | Checking the GNATS database which currently shows 62 high priority | problems, there are some points I'd like to raise: | | 1. I believe we should not ship GCC 3.2.1 (or branch 3.3.) until this | bug count has been significantly reduce. Agreed. Seems like, somewhere at some point, our development model failed to cope with only-bug-or-regression fixes and improving (in the broad sense) the development branch: Balance interests in fixing bugs and adding new functionality. Clearly closing all branches won't automatically make people fixing bugs, but somehow we need to improve on the current situation. Maybe more maintainers for some parts of the compilers? [...] | 3. We probably need some (further) volunteers who monitor GNATS more | closely, ask submitters for further information/feedback and ping | maintainers concerning problems in their areas. Some maintainers have many things to sort out similtaneously so they get quickly very busy... -- Gaby