This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal
On 10/01/2004, at 7:41 AM, Phil Edwards wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 04:47:05PM -0800, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
On 09/01/2004, at 4:25 PM, Phil Edwards wrote:
This sounds no different than the normal trunk rules, and so it
strikes me as
just a bypass of the 3-stage rules so as to not wait for 3.4. If
a significant difference between these rules and the trunk rules,
please explain what I've missed. Otherwise I object, on the grounds
those rules are in place for a reason, and that deliberately
them instead of helping to get 3.4 branched does more harm than good.
The significant difference is that this is not the trunk.
That's a tautology, not an explanation.
It is not the trunk. Therefore, it does not have any of the impacts on
people working on GCC that it would have if it was the trunk.
Yes, this branch is being created because 3.4 is taking too long. If
it was up to me, it would branch today and ship in two months exactly,
bugs or no bugs.
And I largely agree with you.
in fact, if anyone had ever proposed that the
three-stage process should consist of an initial two-month stage 1,
then a four-month stage 2, then a six-month stage 3, I would have
objected greatly, on the grounds that such a release cycle is too long
and provides too little time for development. (You'll recall that the
original proposal was for three two-month stages; at the time, I
thought that was a fair compromise. It's a shame the compromise is
No argument there. So, let's fix that, rather than abandon it. If we
"this is exactly like the trunk, except it's not THE trunk, so we don't
have to follow the rules" branches every time we're waiting to proceed
from stage 3, then something is wrong.
I agree; something is wrong. It was visible that something was wrong
in the 3.3 timeframe, too. Perhaps this time we will do something
What if there were a harder cap on the length of time we spend in a
At the end of 2 months, we push hard to go to the next stage, after
another month, if we're still not there, then too bad, we do it anyway.
The "tough love" approach to release cycles.
I would support this, although I would prefer a hard cap of 2 months.
IMO, if it's not fixed in 2 months it won't be fixed in 3.
No, I don't know that it's a viable solution, but I'd rather try to
rules we've got than just do an end run around them. Better
I hope the rules can be fixed, to avoid these problems happening again