GCC Status (2004-08-09)

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Giovanni Bajo wrote:

> So I still think that alternating Stage 2 and Stage 3 for a while makes sense,
> and enter Stage 3 fully only when the number of regressions is below a certain
> level (say, 120 or so). We probably have just to work out a correct way of
> doing it, changing every other week is surely too confusing. For instance,
> Stage2 for 1 month, then Stage 3 until 30 bugs are fixed, then back? Does this
> tackle your concerns, or you think any kind of alternation is going to be
> confusing, no matter what?

I suspect any sort of alternation would be rather confusing, but my 
preferred alternation model would be switching to Stage 3 whenever 
regression testers spend too long with regressions, until they show clean.  
The log at <http://gcc.gnu.org/regtest/log.txt.gz> shows continuous 
regression status since late January.  Those particular regressions have 
been fixed, but there are some target-independent regressions (which 
should probably have been noticed before checkin unless there was an 
interaction between two patches checked in about the same time) that have 
been present since late March.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers               http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
    jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
    jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)