This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>, Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 11 Jun 2003 15:45:45 -0700
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule
- References: <14ff01c33068$fd157600$e14e2697@bagio>
> Alas, we didn't come to an agreement over the regression issue. It's
> probably the most important issue and should be handled carefully. Using the
> 3.3regression and 3.4regression keywords makes the "milestone" entry almost
> a duplicate (like it is right now), and has some issues when in the future
> we branch for 3.4 and/or we close the 3.3 branch. We had some discussion and
> I strongly believe that the best way would be to have a more powerful way to
> track which versions are affected by the bug (like a yes/no/untested flag
> for each version), which could be used automatically by scripts & query to
> find out regressions and setup milestones. Any other solution I've seen
> leads to either an information duplication or a loss of information. Until
> we find out what to do and do it, I'd rather keep the current system.
I agree.
The target milestone should become our major key -- sometimes we'll not
want to fix a bug on the release branch, even if it is a regression
there. But knowing in which versions the test case fails is useful.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com