This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Adjust develop.html to reflect recent practice
- From: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:40:11 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adjust develop.html to reflect recent practice
- References: <alpine.LNX.2.00.0909201433140.4520@zhemvz.fhfr.qr> <alpine.LSU.1.99.0909270020480.899@acrux.dbai.tuwien.ac.at>
On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > As commented to my last status report develop.html does not reflect
> > reality anymore. The following tries to adjust it carefully in
> > this respect.
>
> I believe you got the math wrong in one case, when you went from
> four months that a branch will need to be maintained in the old
> model up to six months. Is it possible you ment to substract the
> two months Stage 2 used to take instead of add it?
Indeed, I mixed in the length of stage1. Four month would be
still about correct (2 month stage3 plus 2 month before we branch,
in the old model it was 2 month stage2 plus 2 month stage3).
> Since it seems hard to predicat the time between the end of Stage 3
> and branching, I suggest to just say "a few months".
>
> The patch below does that in its last hunk and makes one or the
> other editorial change.
>
> Thoughts?
Ok with me.
Thanks,
Richard.