GCC 3.3.1 and GCC 3.4 Schedule

[Wolfgang Bangerth]

On Wednesday 11 June 2003 05:07 pm, jbuck@synopsys.com wrote:
> Should we systematically set the target milestone for the latter set of
> bugs to 3.3.1?

Yes, I was under the impression that most have. Andrew, if you could go 
through them, that would be great! You need to check for "[3.3" since it may 
be followed by either " regression]", or "/3.4 regression".


> Of course we're not going to get them all, but at some
> point those that are going to take more time could be moved to 3.3.2
> and those that would require more major work can be moved to 3.4.
> Some regressions are less important than others (e.g. ICE on illegal
> code, where some reasonable diagnostic comes out).

Yes. We need to come up with a policy of what we should do when a new 
regression comes in. I wanted to wait with that, though, until Daniel has 
reduced the number of priority and severity states. (That was the reason why 
the priorities are presently unreliable: we have too many states, and no 
clear policy when to use which of them.)

W.

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