This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: PROPOSAL: Policy for obsoleting targets

On Tuesday 20 May 2003 11:55 pm, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> The discussion in response to this proposal has been interesting.  It
> seems that it was too radical, at least for the present time.  I would
> like to make a few observations in defense of it, or at least a
> similar plan, however.
- - snip - -
> Because of this experience, I feel that keeping old
> unused ports around is a disservice even to hypothetical future people
> who want that old port.  They're going to wind up throwing it all away
> anyway, and all the effort put into keeping that port nominally up to
> date will have been wasted.
Could a new listing be added to the Web pages that showed:
"Target Triple" -> "Last reported, working release"
"Target Triple" -> "Last known update"
"Target Triple" -> "Dropped in release: x.y.z"

That would be information for people returning to the use of gcc
after the target they where interested in had disappeared. 
That page might also be included with the release tar-ball.  I can
imgine that people would not look for that information until the release
they just downloaded didn't work for their target.

Could the policy for obsoleting targets measure the passage of
time in "Releases since last reported working" rather than in

> zw

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]