This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria
- To: martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de, root at ihack dot net
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.0 Release Criteria
- From: Mike Stump <mrs at windriver dot com>
- Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 14:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 02:39:32 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Charles M. Hannum" <root@ihack.net>
> To: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de>
> I used to make the (apparently incorrect) assumption that submitting a
> bug report with a fix to gcc-bugs was sufficient.
Nope. Not even submitting them to gcc-patches is sufficient, thought
it is closer than the first. Welcome to gcc.
> So it's possible that things were lost there.
Nope, they aren't lost, they just have not been acted upon yet.
> > Out of curiosity: Can you please point to specific patches in the
> > gcc-patches archives, that should have been installed in a certain
> > release, but did not get installed because of Linux?
> I forget which patches *specifically*,
It is sometimes necessary to keep track of patches you submit, and
keep pushing them until they get in. Failure to do this will result
in patches not going in.
> but I know for a fact that there were several known and well-tested
> patches that were important to NetBSD that did not go in 1.1.2
> because it was specifically slated to support Linux.
You seek to blame Linux. This is wrong. They didn't go in because
you didn't care enough push them.
We don't just apply every patch patch comes in. The process is more
selective than that.