Re: [Patch] Qualify min(), max() and distance() in v3.

[Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>]

>I'm having a tough time.
>
>When I set schedules, people complain that we can't do that, since we
>need volunteers.  In practice, we're missing dates because people aren't
>stepping up to fix regressions as quickly as we'd like.
>
>On the other hand, without a schedule, I understand that planning is
>tough.
>
>I'll admit that I'm a bit befuddled about how to "manage"; I can say
>what makes sense to put into the releases, but I don't have the
>authority to manage the people.  So, I muddle along...

Unquestionably, you're doing a great job in a difficult and demanding
position. Kudos.


>The best thing people can do is to fix the really high-priority 3.3
>bugs, so that I fell confident about making that branch.  The most
>important bugs are wrong-code, and ice-on-legal-code.

Ok. Is there a list of the particular ones that should be tracked?

>I'll make you a deal; we'll cut the branch no latter than Dec 15th.
>
>After that, I expect the sequence you said: BIB->mainline, the new
>C++ parser, and then (perhaps) some tree optimizer stuff, although
>I haven't really gotten the impression that stuff is fully ready yet.

Wow! Cool. I was thinking about the tree-ssa bits, and also Vlad's
Itanium2 bundling work, but since I don't really know what's up with
that I'll let other, more capable, hands figure that out. 

I'm just glad there's a well-defined plan, man.

:)

Thanks!
-benjamin