This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Less radical proposal (was Re: Radical proposal: skip 3.4)
- From: Phil Edwards <phil at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Nathanael Nerode <neroden at twcny dot rr dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 10:52:49 -0500
- Subject: Less radical proposal (was Re: Radical proposal: skip 3.4)
- References: <3FFF54E5.email@example.com>
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:27:01PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> [...] it's probably worth
> completely avoiding new development work until this gets cut down
> somewhat. On the other hand, if the new development work is going to
> incidentally fix these bugs, it's probably worth going with it rather
> than trying to come up with temporary fixes.
> So I think people doing development work should identify which
> regressions are already fixed by their development work. This would
> help identify which regressions are going to be "incidentally" fixed in
> 3.5, and which aren't. If lots of bugs will be incidentally fixed,
> we're in one situation; otherwise we're in quite a different situation.
I was about to post a, "hey, this is a very good idea and I strongly agree
with it" message, then I realized that these are precisely the guidelines
we're already supposed to be following.
So, here's a suggestion: during stage 3, this rule should be more
vigourously ... eh, "enforced" isn't quite the word I want, but it's close.
For those two months, we really should be seeing more bugs fixed than
new code committed. Yah, I know fixing bugs isn't sexy, but getting our
collective ass whomped by commercial compilers is even less sexy. Yah, I
know nobody here wants to be the unpopular bully who vetos perfectly good
new dev work during those two months, but I think it'll still be needed.
(This assumes that future stages really are held to 2 months or so... and
if we restrict stage 3 to just bugfixing, I'm betting that 2 months will
be plenty of time.)
LUKE: Is Perl better than Python?
YODA: No... no... no. Quicker, easier, more seductive.
LUKE: But how will I know why Python is better than Perl?
YODA: You will know. When your code you try to read six months from now.