This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual
- From: "S. Bosscher" <S dot Bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- To: 'Wolfgang Bangerth ' <bangerth at ices dot utexas dot edu>,"'gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org '" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: 'Steven Bosscher ' <s dot bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>,'Mark Mitchell ' <mark at codesourcery dot com>,'Giovanni Bajo ' <giovannibajo at libero dot it>,'Gabriel Dos Reis ' <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>,'Nathan Sidwell ' <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 16:15:24 +0100
- Subject: RE: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual
>>> The priority field should indicate the importance of the bug.
>>> Regressions should still be targetted at the next scheduled release
>>> (until the RM decides otherwise).
>> OK. But then the RM should also look at the importance of tbe
>> bug, not just the target milestone.
>Our (extensively discussed)
but undocumented. sorry, i don't follow every discussion. i doubt anyone
does. It is a good policy in principle. In practice it doesn't always
> policy has been to mark all regressions for
> the next release, and that only the RM should be allowed to slip a
> PR to a later release (as this is a political, not a technical decision).
> I would like to keep to this policy. Otherwise, we would all start to
> assign milestones at our own priority.
Milestones are only meaningful if the bugs actually are important enough
to somebody to fix it. As has been pointed out by our RM several times,
GCC is a volunteer project and he doesn't think pushing volunteers to do
something would help. All this policy does at this late stage is make
the compiler look far worse than it is in reality.