This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Bugzilla vs 5.0 milestone
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, "gcc at gnu dot org" <gcc at gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 10:21:28 +0100
- Subject: Re: Bugzilla vs 5.0 milestone
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <55134E7E dot 3000409 at oracle dot com> <CAFiYyc2OJbaAi1ewtm+EHKx9x+1bSwYVYMPDP58FcMfqkYdFMg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150326085228 dot GT1746 at tucnak dot redhat dot com> <mvm619oyva3 dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <CAFiYyc1aVCZsbGciXinWgrZX83L0LWhO88Ue1ejaWr9F+0TzBQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Richard Biener
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Andreas Schwab <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> Jakub Jelinek <email@example.com> writes:
>>> Though, 5.0 milestone isn't completely meaningless, it means plan to fix it
>>> already before the release.
>> That's true for all 5.1 milestone bugs as well. :-)
> It would be "fix during development aka stage1-3" vs. "fix for 5.1"
> which we'd use
> during stage4 (where we also forgot to bump the patchlevel version to get trunk
> to GCC 5.0.1 as documented).
Which means the target milestone should be 6.0 while trunk is still 5.0.x
and 6.0.1 while trunk is 6.0.0 and 6.1.0 while trunk is 6.0.1 and 6.2.0
while the gcc-6-branch is 6.1.1.
Maybe that's too much continuous renaming?
>> Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, firstname.lastname@example.org
>> GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
>> "And now for something completely different."