This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re:
- From: Bryce McKinlay <mckinlay at redhat dot com>
- To: tromey at redhat dot com
- Cc: Java Patch List <java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:47:05 -0400
- Subject: Re:
- References: <m3d5q5b0pw.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
Tom Tromey wrote:
I'm checking this in on the trunk. If I remember I'll put it on the
4.0 branch once it reopens (there are a fair number of patches pending
for it ... I hope it reopens soon).
Mark,
The extended freeze of the 4.0 branch is making things difficult for
libgcj because we have a large backlog of runtime patches which we are
unable to apply at this time. The longer the freeze continues, the more
difficult it becomes for us to keep track of what needs applying and
increases the chances that something will be forgotten, resulting in
problems and wasted time further down the line.
Could we get an exemption from the freeze rules for low-risk, runtime
only libgcj fixes as determined by the libgcj maintainers?
Alternatively, could we rethink our release policy to ensure that the
duration of freezes is minimized in the future? I do think that a hard
freeze in the days leading up to a release is useful and important, but
keeping it in place for weeks just because a couple of bugs remain
unfixed doesn't seem helpful.
Thanks
Bryce