Re: Important: Development Plan for Future Releases

["Anthony Green" <green at redhat dot com>]

Mark wrote:
>     Stage 2
>     -------
>
>     During this period, major changes may not be merged from branches.
>     However, other smaller improvements may be made.  For example,
>     support for a new language construct might be added in a
>     front-end, or support for a new variant of an existing
>     microprocessor might be added to a back-end.

Hmm... to a casual observer like myself it seems that adding a _new_
microprocessor port is less risky than _modifying_ an existing port to add a
new variant.  Why shouldn't this be allowed?

>    If a patch is committed which introduces a regression [1], on any
>    target which the Steering Committee considers to be important [2],

"target" shows up more than "host" in this note.  What about regressions on
different host platforms?

Ignoring test code, I believe that more than half of the source files in GCC
are part of some target library and not the compiler.  Your note has very
little to say about target libraries.  Am I right to assume that the library
maintainers are to work within the spirit of this plan, but have more
flexibility?

AG