This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Release schedule
- From: Pop Sébastian <pop at gauvain dot u-strasbg dot fr>
- To: "S. Bosscher" <S dot Bosscher at student dot tudelft dot nl>
- Cc: 'Mike Stump ' <mrs at apple dot com>, 'David Edelsohn ' <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>,'Mark Mitchell ' <mark at codesourcery dot com>,'Gerald Pfeifer ' <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>,"'gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org '" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 00:20:24 +0200
- Subject: Re: Release schedule
- References: <4195D82C2DB1D211B9910008C7C9B06F01F372C5@lr0nt3.lr.tudelft.nl>
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:46:28PM +0200, S. Bosscher wrote:
> On Saturday, September 28, 2002, at 02:21 PM, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> >>> Because of the overlap between releases and development, GCC
> >>> developers are forced to make a choice
> >>
> >> Yes, and closing development branches in the weeks before branching
> >> would "help" them make the choice ;-)
> >
> > Or it would drive them back underground, where they were in the past.
>
> yeah yeah I know, this was meant to be sarcasm, note the smiley...
>
> FWIW I am all *against* freezing dev branches. GCC developers are
> volunteers, and taking away their fun projects is a bad thing.
>
Agree, we're not paid for doing this, thus we can spend time on what
_we_ consider to be of interest.
Even if you close our branches you'll not get more bug fixes...
> Still I also think there are too many development projects right now, and I
> also believe that it would be good to plan when these major improvements
> should be finished, no matter how hard that may be in a project that depends
> on the time of volunteers.
>
Why not having a per major improvment release instead of the current
strict release schedule?
We don't sell our product, so I don't see why we should be constrained
by a strict schedule release.
If you want to have a strict schedule on the mainline, then you have to allow
schedule-free development on branches.
Sebastian