Re: GCC 4.1 Projects

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>]

On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 00:38 +0100, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> > >Although you have listed it as "stage 2", I wish to commit the finished
> > >portion as soon as possible during stage 1.  I have maintainership 
> > >authority
> > >to do so.  This will not interfere in any way with *any* of the projects
> > >approved for stage 1, since it is in a disjoint section of code.  
> > 
> > If it breaks bootstrap, it will definitely interfere.  If it causes 
> > patch conflicts with other changes it will also interfere.  And if it 
> > doesn't cause any patch conflicts, then it probably won't be very hard 
> > to maintain on a branch.
> > 
> > > Accordingly, I plan to do so unless I am told not to.
> > 
> > I would certainly prefer that you hold off until Stage 2, as indicated 
> > by the documented I posted.
> 
> I must admit I have very bad feeling about the whole "4.1 Projects"
> stuff.  IMHO this over-organizes things.  If people in general disagree
> with the Nathan's changes, or if there are any reasons to think that
> they are not tested enough or whatever when he submits them, of course
> that is something else.  But I don't think having just a single person
> decide which patches may go in and which must wait, or even just judging
> their importance, is a good idea.

In stark contrast, i believe it is a very good idea for us to be "over
organized" about this.  As for judging importance, the release manager
has always judged what is important for a given release, based on
general goals.

A general ordering of projects people are working on, in order to reduce
merge problems and difficulty, does not seem like "over organizing" to
me.  What is the big rush?

--Dan