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: Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Tobias Schl?ter <tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:12:31 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFC: future gfortran development and subversion
- References: <20051019183738.GA7927@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <43569798.1000109@physik.uni-muenchen.de> <84fc9c000510191306p6e206c1bj64e1871c40439bd9@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 10:06:44PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On 10/19/05, Tobias Schl?ter <tobias.schlueter@physik.uni-muenchen.de> wrote:
> > 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.
Please define regression.
> And occasional backporting of bugfixes should be not a too great burden.
The sky is blue in my world.
> I definitely hope we're not ending up applying large fortran changes to
> a release series again. (Ok, 4.0 _was_ special ...)
Whatever.
--
Steve