This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
What to do with usual bug fixes vs. the branch (Was: Re: c++/8931:g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules)
- From: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ticam dot utexas dot edu>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, <gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <sebor at roguewave dot com>, <gcc-gnats at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:09:05 -0600 (CST)
- Subject: What to do with usual bug fixes vs. the branch (Was: Re: c++/8931:g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules)
> | - given the really *large* number of open bug reports, I think the scarce
> | bug fixing resources gcc has serve the community better in the long term
> | if we let them focus on 3.3, rather than spending time backporting
> | fixes. This way we might get 3.3 out earlier, which will certainly be
> | better than any 3.2.2.
>
> I'm not suggesting people spend their time backporting every
> imaginable patch that happens to fix some bug on mainline. There are
> bug-fix patches that don't need any particular action than running
> patch + regtesting. I'm obvisouly talking of such patches.
I don't argue against that. I merely stated some points that I see when
working on the bug database.
> Or we could just make it clear that 3.2 branch is dead and have people
> not bothering about it. That way, we could expect people focus
> mainly on 3.3: That would have the effect of saving any effort on 3.2
> branch and make user clearly know that they should not expect anything
> about 3.2.2. That way, we could perhaps have 3.3 earlier. It would
> certainly be better than 3.2.2 since the latter would be non-existent.
If 3.3 would come out not too long after 3.2.2, why not? (But I understand
that it is hard to predict release dates.)
W.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth email: bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth