What to do with usual bug fixes vs. the branch (Was: Re: c++/8931: g++ 3.2 fails to enforce access rules)

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

> | - 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 don't argue against that. I merely stated some points that I see when 
working on the bug database. 


> 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.

If 3.3 would come out not too long after 3.2.2, why not? (But I understand 
that it is hard to predict release dates.)

W.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wolfgang Bangerth              email:           bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu
                               www: http://www.ticam.utexas.edu/~bangerth