Re: GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 06:16  PM, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:

> On Wednesday 11 June 2003 05:07 pm, jbuck@synopsys.com wrote:
> > Should we systematically set the target milestone for the latter set 
> > of
> > bugs to 3.3.1?
>
> Yes, I was under the impression that most have. Andrew, if you could go
> through them, that would be great! You need to check for "[3.3" since 
> it may
> be followed by either " regression]", or "/3.4 regression".
>
>
> > Of course we're not going to get them all, but at some
> > point those that are going to take more time could be moved to 3.3.2
> > and those that would require more major work can be moved to 3.4.
> > Some regressions are less important than others (e.g. ICE on illegal
> > code, where some reasonable diagnostic comes out).
>
> Yes. We need to come up with a policy of what we should do when a new
> regression comes in. I wanted to wait with that, though, until Daniel 
> has
> reduced the number of priority and severity states. (That was the 
> reason why
> the priorities are presently unreliable: we have too many states, and 
> no
> clear policy when to use which of them.)

I'll try to get this done sometime tonight.