Re: Review of release criteria?

["Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:

> I'm a bit pissed about this.
> 
> There are a lot of people who worked very hard on this release who are
> not on the SC and would like to know what is up. I consider myself one
> of these people. Part of your duty, as I see it, as release manager
> involves communicating with developers, trying to figure out what went
> wrong (and how it can be fixed) and what went right (and should be
> made part of the process.)
> 
> I think public feedback on the release very important. 
> 
> So, in the interest of having a public review of gcc-3.0's development
> and release process, here's my take on the release.

Can you convert some of this into a patch to criteria.html?  At present a
few things that were done well in advance are marked as Done, and even
without a formal review having better documentation of what was done in
the end would be useful.  (For example, did the SC ever decide anything on
-fstrict-aliasing, as they were going to, or did it just end up on through
inertia?)  (Though some things may yet be done for 3.0.1, e.g. more
platforms, and finishing merging the old installation instructions if
anyone familiar with cross-compiling volunteers to merge that part.)

On this last point, and considering the amount of documentation work
needed to bring it up to date with the code, I'm tending to think that we
do need the code freeze Phil Edwards proposed
<URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-05/msg00612.html> until the
documentation is a more accurate reflection of the collective
understanding of the workings and features of the code.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk