This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ 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: patches to move to gcc-3_2-branch


>We're using this policy for every other part of the system; why not
>V3?

The locale bits weren't final in 3.1, so "regression" means nothing. 

I'm trying to keep 3_2-branch in sync with gcc-3_2-rhl8-branch, which is
getting bug fixes as well as regression fixes (both of which I agree
with). I feel that the "regression-only" policy is stymieing my best
intentions to keep a level playing field for all.

That's it. This policy is making maintaining the 3_2-branch more
difficult than I'd desire (which is direct vendor merges from
3_2-branch.)

Perhaps other parts of gcc don't care about the digression, don't have
such patches, or have a different viewpoint. 

It's not severe now, but these branches could grow apart quickly.

best,
benjamin


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