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

[Michael Matz]

Hi,

On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, 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".

Yep.  I for instance avoided issues with that by concentrating just on
development on a branch, to not miss the maximum merge date again (and
even now it's not certain that I make it).  Otherwise I maybe had time to
fix some of gcc's slowness for the release.

I think the structural change period should cover more time than the
release period, e.g. four months unstable (the first two of them parallel
to a two month release period (like now)), two months
big-bugfix/stabilize, two months release (again parallel to the now
starting four months unstable period).  If there are no big merges
pending, we can _decrease_ the four months for that cycle, instead of
extending a too short period.  I somehow think psychologically this would
be better and produce not as much stress.


Ciao,
Michael.