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: Objective-C bugs and GCC releases

>>>>> "Joe" == Joe Buck <Joe.Buck@synopsys.COM> writes:

Joe> We are not robots here; I know that Mark will use good judgment
Joe> even if not required to do so by what we have written down.
Joe> Should something like that arise (a change goes in the last day
Joe> that breaks Java, say), Mark can still hold things up until the
Joe> change is backed out or repaired.  However, that can only happen
Joe> if such things are caught quickly.

I don't mean to imply that Mark, or anybody, isn't reasonable.
And I realize the situation isn't black or white.

I'm saying, it would be nice to have some institutional assurance that
a given release won't include a serious gcj breakage... seeing those
bugs get marked "not critical" was a disturbing moment.  It would be
pretty embarrassing to have put all this work into gcj for gcc 4 only
to have it release with some silly regression like PR 19295.

Maybe this means we should try to get gcj on the release criteria
list, if only in some minimal way.  "No test suite regressions on x86
linux" is the sort of thing I'm thinking of.


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