This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Renaming Stage 1 and Stage 3
- From: Dodji Seketeli <dodji at seketeli dot org>
- To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:27:38 +0200
- Subject: Re: Renaming Stage 1 and Stage 3
- References: <4EA8296F.2020300@redhat.com> <m3ty6pxotz.fsf@houston.quesejoda.com> <mcrbosxvvww.fsf@dhcp-172-18-216-180.mtv.corp.google.com> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1206102354370.7564@zbenl.fvgr> <CAFiYyc2AGbBtzhJTodneCt7i54wBUqC4cD0s8asJO4ziSYdy2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> a Ãcrit:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> No opinion on your actual question, but note that there is no more
>>> stage2. ÂWe now go directly from stage1 to stage3. ÂThis is just another
>>> feature of gcc development seemingly designed to confuse newbies, and
>>> evidently even confuses experienced developers.
>>
>> So, let's fix this! ÂIn fact, this is something Mark, David and me
>> discussed at the last GCC Summit and which fell through the cracks
>> on my side.
>>
>> Instead of renaming Stage 3 to Stage 2 at that point we figured that
>> using different terminology would reduce confusion. ÂI am not wedded
>> to Stage A and B, though this seems to be the most straightforward
>> option (over colors, Alpha and Beta carrying a different meaning in
>> software development,...).
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Eh - why not give them names with an actual meaning? "Development Stage"
> and "Stabilizing Stage"? I realize those are rather long names, but you
> can always put short forms in tables, like Dev Stage and Stab Stage.
Seconded, for what it's worth.
--
Dodji