Re: GCC 3.5 Status (2004-08-29)

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

> Making regular bug-fix releases at regularly spaced times makes good
> sense to me.  What I'm unclear about is what we want for the *major*
> releases.  Do we just want them every 6 months?  Do we drive it by
> quality?  If by quality, what are the quality criteria?  I suspect
>  
We cannot drive it purely by quality, since we will never get quality 
unless we decide that we're going to make a release.  The level of 
bug-fixing activity goes up steeply as we approach a release: people 
start to fear that "their" platform/language/etc. will not work well.  
That's why we use a combination: drive by time, and then push for 
quality towards that date.

> | they can lead to lower quality, as more and more changes go in,
> | sometimes without corresponding problem-solving efforts.  I also don't
> | think that "wait until it is ready" is a practical method for a
> | project this big with this much change and with so much
> | inter-dependency between components.
>
> Again, I agree.  However, because the project is that big, I believe
> branching  proposals should meet consensus among developers.
>  
In contrast, I don't see consensus as achievable in this group.  We 
barely get consensus on technical issues, let alone on priorities.

Instead, I see my job as to take input, ponder it, consult with people, 
and make decisions.  The decisions I made about 3.5 were made with lots 
of input from lots of people -- developers, users, and other 
stakeholders -- and informed by discussions with people going back as 
far as the summit in Ottawa.  I don't expect everyone to be 100% happy 
about my decisions; I only hope to do a good enough job of being fair 
and reasonable that people respect them.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com