This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: future gfortran development and subversion
- From: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Tobias Schlüter <tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>
- Cc: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:06:44 +0200
- Subject: Re: RFC: future gfortran development and subversion
- References: <20051019183738.GA7927@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <43569798.1000109@physik.uni-muenchen.de>
On 10/19/05, Tobias Schlüter <tobias.schlueter@physik.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
>
> [ I've added gcc@ to the CC list and reproduced the message in full, FX
> already got the "buy a bigger harddisk" answer there, I think it makes sense
> to show that other people care about this, too ]
>
> Steve Kargl wrote:
> > Now, to my proposal for future gfortran development post 4.1 branching.
> > When (if) svn becomes the source code revision tool, I propose that all
> > future work be done solely on mainline. No individual patches can be
> > merged into 4.1. The 4.0 branch will be dead. Periodically, say bi-weekly
> > or monthly, we do a merge from mainline into 4.1. The aim is to keep 4.1
> > and mainline sufficiently in sync and to minimize the requirements of
> > additional hardware (except for the day or two required for the merge) and
> > to maximize our time investment.
Dude, I hope fortran will, after branching of 4.1, follow the usual rules
of regression fixes only. This means development will be on mainline
only anyways, as for any other language. And occasional backporting of
bugfixes should be not a too great burden.
I definitely hope we're not ending up applying large fortran changes to
a release series again. (Ok, 4.0 _was_ special ...)
Richard.