This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFA:] Fix PR target/6838 CRIS, request to revise 3.1 check-inpolicy
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 09:09:51 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFA:] Fix PR target/6838 CRIS, request to revise 3.1 check-inpolicy
--On Wednesday, May 29, 2002 05:33:33 PM +0200 Hans-Peter Nilsson
<hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com> wrote:
> Please revise check-in policy for 3.1,
> <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-05/msg01212.html>. I
> believe that port-local bug-fixes for new ports should be
> fixable by a person with approval rights without release manager
> approval.
After the first release of a port/language we do not want to introduce
regressions there. It's true that CRIS cannot have regressed relative
to a previous release of GCC -- but it's true that it *could* regress
in GCC 3.1.1 if we blow it.
For new ports, I've been very flexible *before* the first release
because things are often in considerable flux, and if the new port
is somewhat broken, everyone will still be pleased that is there at
all. But *after* the release, we must start to assume that there are
people depending on it.
Does that make sense?
I do think it makes sense to be a little more lenient with new ports;
there are probably fewer people depending on them and more "showstopper"
bugs; it's worth taking more risks.
The patch is OK for the branch.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com