This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
- From: Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe dot com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:02:04 +0200
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, "dewar at gnat dot com" <dewar at gnat dot com>, "kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu" <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- References: <333370000.994742904@warlock.codesourcery.com> <or66d1w7yf.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 04:37:28AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> But by keeping the patch in, we'd be encouraging everybody to take
> responsibility for fixing it. Why place the burden on the very person
> who's already done us the favor of fixing one bug?
>
> > The poster would want to get her patch checked
> > in, so she would either fix the latent bug, or lean on other people
> > to fix it.
>
> And if the patch remained in, more people would be leaning other
> people to fix it :-)
Isn't using (CVS) branches a solution here? Or perhaps just a compromise?
..
> I believe my point still holds: why would we approve a patch that
> introduced a regression in a test case (reverting the patch that fixes
> a bug)?
That is not a REAL regression. Mark is ONLY concerned with regression
relative to already released versions of gcc, not with bugs that are
discovered and (temporally) fixed in the cvs developers version.
And I think he has a point. This means:
version 3.0 can do: "A" and "B".
version 3.0+ (cvs) can do: "A" and "C".
nobody fixes "B".
Mark wants: revert the last patch get "A" and "B": no regression.
You seem claim that reverting that patch breaks "C" and therefore
introduces a regression?
My opinion is that it doesn't hurt to have the patch for C in the cvs
but a release is impossible until B is fixed too. If there is a release
date at some point it should be possible to decide which patches will
have to be reverted and for which people will try hard to fix "B".
--
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>