gcc development schedule [Re: sharing libcpp between GDB and GCC]

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 11:17:30PM +0000, Neil Booth wrote:
> Richard Henderson wrote:-
> > I think this is a mistake.  It is completely unreasonable to have
> > the entire "major structural changes" time period concurrent with
> > "please work on making a release happen".
> 
> I agree.  I think the releases should be an 8-month cycle rather
> than a 6-month cycle.  In other words, 4 months for destabilizing
> changes.

m3 t00.

I'll add that this is an argument for a better version control system;
most of the changes on the queue inside my head, I would have done on
a branch if CVS didn't make branches such a pain.  (E.g. it takes
about 10x longer to do "cvs update" on the 3.0 branch than the trunk.)

zw