This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0

From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk>
Cc: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>, GCC Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org Patches" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 19:31:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
References: <4140A3D3.9@bothner.com> <581163C2-02A7-11D9-B40F-000393941EE6@apple.com><Pine.LNX.4.61.0409092144370.11808@digraph.polyomino.org.uk><BB692894-02B6-11D9-B40F-000393941EE6@apple.com><Pine.LNX.4.61.0409092327350.30467@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Joseph S. Myers wrote:

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004, Mike Stump wrote:

I ask because I wasn't sure if we should leave 3.5.0 in here, or remove it
entirely.


We have 2.96 and 2.97 versions in the database, which track that bugs were
reported against mainline in given date ranges, though there were no such
releases.  But in the present instance the database seems to have been
bulk converted from 3.5 to 4.0 without keeping such a distinction in the
reported versions.


Wasn't me, :)
I think andrew did it.

References:
- Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  - From: Mike Stump
- Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  - From: Mike Stump
- Re: SC decision on version numbering: 4.0
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

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