This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: 3.4 regressions: are 2.95 regressions still actual

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> What we may consider though, and I guess that is what Erik was trying
> to say, is when a (non-regression) bug is fixed in mainline it might
> make sense to backport a corresponding patch to a branch.

This is totally up to the RM, and how the rules for each branch are set up. The
general policy for a release branch is that a branch is open for regression
fixes only. I'm aware that you are following a different policy for 3.3.x, and
developers had already committed non-regression patches for 3.3.3 during the
time it was allowed.

So, I don't see what this has to do with how and when we close the bugs in
bugzilla. If a bug is already fixed for mainline, and the patch that went in
was non-intrunsive and easy enough, you probably already asked for a backport.
Of course, it might have gone unnoticed, that's a possibility.

> in x.y, won't fix in x.s.t".  However, some bugs can, technically, be
> fixed on branches through safe backports.  I think those should be
> given some considerations through less hard-and-fast rules.

Ok, do you have a proposal for a new policy about this? What would you like to

Giovanni Bajo

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]