This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
- To: "H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Subject: Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
- From: Carlo Wood <carlo at alinoe dot com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:17:11 +0200
- Cc: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, "dewar at gnat dot com" <dewar at gnat dot com>, "kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu" <kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- References: <orzoadxvh6.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br> <333370000.994742904@warlock.codesourcery.com> <20010710004258.A10733@lucon.org>
On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 12:42:58AM -0700, H . J . Lu wrote:
> I don't understand why anyone wants to
> fix all regressions in 3.0.1. I can tell you right now that you will
> make 3.0.2 if you want to fix the remaining/new regressions in
> 3.0.1. We should keep making 3.0.x and let users tell us when it is
> good enough. Don't make making a release so complicated.
I feel I am insignificant person here, and perhaps this is over my head...
but I can't stand seeing you good people fighting: this should be _fun_ for
each and everyone of you!
So, as an outsider, allow me to propose a compromise:
Why don't we release a 3.0.1 that has NO regressions towards 3.0,
that has no NEW regressions towards 2.95.3 and that fixes some
important regressions towards 2.95.3. Then we tell the users
that this is a bug fix release but that it still has known regressions
relative to 2.95.3. It shouldn't be hard to make a list of these
regressions.
---
Secondly, my observation is that this discussion is about two different
things. You should split them up in a different thread :).
One thing is: when do we release 3.0.1. The other is: what do we do
with committed patches that break things that worked before.
--
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>