Another patch for egcs 1.1.2

Jeffrey A Law
Sat Feb 27 00:08:00 GMT 1999

  In message <>you
  > write:
  > I think we (perhaps I mean Jeff, rather than some amorphous we?) had
  > better come up with some firm guidelines for what kind of things go
  > into patch releases.
  > The following seems to happen every time we get near a release:
  >   o We mostly freeze the release.
  >   o HJ and others submit lots of patches.
  >   o We get stuck, and iterate for ages.
Yes.  It would be nice to avoid this kind of situation.  Running into this
situation for every release is quite stressful for me and I suspect for other
folks too.

It's not entirely clear that if we have documentation and guidelines for
minor release that this problem will actually improve because we have groups
with differing release objectives.  But we've got nothing to lose by trying
to improve the communication process for minor releases.

At least folks would have a better handle on why certain decisions are made,
even if they do not agree with those decisions.


I certainly didn't do as good of a job as I should have in terms of keeping
everyone informed about the egcs-1.1.2 plans.  I will certainly try to do
better for future releases.

I believe the basic model we used for egcs-1.1 was the right one -- what are
the key goals of the release, what items do we need for the release h that
are still under development, build schedule that includes various important
dates, current status/open issues communicated better to everyone, etc.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list