This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
3.1 branch check-in policy questions
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: mark at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 02 06:56:48 EST
- Subject: 3.1 branch check-in policy questions
I have two areas where I wanted to ask if check-ins to the 3.1 branch
are appropriate. I believe they both are, but wanted to confirm:
(1) I'd like treat Alpha/VMS support the same way as we're treating Ada: since
it's a new feature, changes just to files for it should be permitted to fix
bugs that are not necessarily regressions.
(2) I'd like to clarify that "regression" means not just something that
worked in 3.0, but things that used to work in the top-of-tree, but now
don't. I'm thinking specifically of the Sparc bootstrap sitation (it now
fails in the Ada part of the bootstrap, but used to work) and the situation
with RTH's change of February 21, which caused some regressions, but on
things that didn't used to work (Alpha/VMS and an Ada test) with 3.0, but
worked a few weeks ago.
Do you agree?