This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Renaming Stage 1 and Stage 3
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 17:04:57 +0200
- Subject: Re: Renaming Stage 1 and Stage 3
- References: <4EA8296F.2020300@redhat.com> <m3ty6pxotz.fsf@houston.quesejoda.com> <mcrbosxvvww.fsf@dhcp-172-18-216-180.mtv.corp.google.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1206102354370.7564@zbenl.fvgr> <CAFiYyc2AGbBtzhJTodneCt7i54wBUqC4cD0s8asJO4ziSYdy2Q@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:18:23AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Eh - why not give them names with an actual meaning? "Development Stage"
> and "Stabilizing Stage"? I realize those are rather long names, but you
> can always put short forms in tables, like Dev Stage and Stab Stage.
Shouldn't we have names for the 3 phases we actually use, rather than just
two? I.e. development phase, stabilization phase (no new features,
bugfixes allowed) and release branch freeze phase (only regression bugfixes and
documentation, same as for release branches)?
Jakub