This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- From: kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu (Richard Kenner)
- To: bonzini at gnu dot org
- Cc: Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com, dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com, dberlin at dberlin dot org, dje dot gcc at gmail dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net, law at redhat dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com, rguenther at suse dot de, stevenb dot gcc at gmail dot com
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:04:35 EDT
- Subject: Re: GCC 4.4.0 Status Report (2009-03-13)
- References: <20090320165858.GI27119@synopsys.com> <20090322050024.GA18893@synopsys.com> <4aca3dc20903220547v8923d55v9ac593f8400be6a9@mail.gmail.com> <10903221258.AA04666@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220718oefa452ek60dcc1d933e1e093@mail.gmail.com> <10903221441.AA05218@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220808w4c04c0e9g74b25a55ea3d8b42@mail.gmail.com> <10903221517.AA05569@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <206fcf960903220823s6fe866fdja8c96e60bb3c432c@mail.gmail.com> <10903221537.AA05719@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <f865508f0903220838m55e7408fmd4ee68e84c6a8f5b@mail.gmail.com>
> Of course, just I (and others) don't see why they should do it in this
> case. Delaying a *branch* is different from, say, using a proprietary
> version control or bug tracking system.
I don't either. Requesting a delay of a *release* on a license issue
is completely and perfectly understandable, but what that has to do
with making a *branch* makes absolutely no sense to me.