Re: backport 3.4 <- 3.5 after today's freeze, but prior to ssamerge?

[Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>]

Sorry, although I may misunderstand; the basis of my suggestion was that it
may be beneficial in both the long and short runs to consider adopting 3.5
prior to it's merge with ssa to considered the basis of 3.4, as although it
does contain "new features", it also seems to be as, if not arguably more
robust than 3.4 presently is. (not a big deal, just thought it may be worthy
of consideration, if it hadn't already been given serious thought.)

> From: Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>
> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:04:21 +0100
> To: Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net>
> Cc: <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: backport 3.4 <- 3.5 after today's freeze, but prior to ssa merge?
> 
> Paul Schlie <schlie@comcast.net> writes:
> 
>> Sorry if it's a dumb notion, but as 3.5 appears to be as robust as 3.4
>> presently is; and be in effectively a similar temporary stage of development
> 
> There's already new stuff in 3.5 that is not in 3.4.  There will not
> be a merge from 3.4 to 3.5, we only put regression fixes on the 3.4
> release branch.
> 
>> pending it's merge with ssa; might it make sense to consider for the sake of
>> consistency and conservation of resources, focusing efforts on stabilizing
> 
> Why conservation of resources?  Nothing will be thrown away that is
> currently going into 3.4.
> 
>> 3.5 for a few weeks, and then simply adopting it as the basis of 3.4 just
>> prior to it's merge with ssa, which afterward will then truly form the basis
>> of 3.5?
>> 
>> (as I vaguely recall something similar in the 3.1/3.2/3.3 development days?)
> 
> I don't remember anything like that...
> 
> Andreas
> -- 
> Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
> SuSE Linux AG, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
>  GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
>