c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

The following reply was made to PR c++/8931; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>, <sebor@roguewave.com>,
   <gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules
Date: 13 Dec 2002 22:31:13 +0100

 Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu> writes:
 
 | - given the really *large* number of open bug reports, I think the scarce
 |   bug fixing resources gcc has serve the community better in the long term
 |   if we let them focus on 3.3, rather than spending time backporting 
 |   fixes. This way we might get 3.3 out earlier, which will certainly be 
 |   better than any 3.2.2.
 
 I'm not suggesting people spend their time backporting every
 imaginable patch that happens to fix some bug on mainline.  There are
 bug-fix patches that don't need any particular action than running
 patch + regtesting.  I'm obvisouly talking of such patches.
 
 I doubt we'll get 3.3 earlier just because we refuse to apply the same
 patch (we do know passes regtesting) on mainline and branch.  
 
 Or we could just make it clear that 3.2 branch is dead and have people
 not  bothering about it.  That way, we could expect people focus
 mainly on 3.3:  That would have the effect of saving any effort on 3.2
 branch and make user clearly know that they should not expect anything
 about 3.2.2.  That way, we could perhaps have 3.3 earlier.  It would
 certainly be better than 3.2.2 since the latter would be non-existent.
 
 -- Gaby