GCC 3.5 Status (2004-08-29)

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:

| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| 
| >Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
| >
| >| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | | >Making regular bug-fix releases at regularly spaced times makes
| > good
| >| >sense to me.  What I'm unclear about is what we want for the *major*
| >| >releases.  Do we just want them every 6 months?  Do we drive it by
| >| >quality?  If by quality, what are the quality criteria?  I suspect
| >| >
| >| We cannot drive it purely by quality, since we will never get quality
| >| unless we decide that we're going to make a release.  The level of
| >| bug-fixing activity goes up steeply as we approach a release: people
| >| start to fear that "their" platform/language/etc. will not work well.
| >| That's why we use a combination: drive by time, and then push for
| >| quality towards that date.
| > | | >| they can lead to lower quality, as more and more changes go
| > in,
| >| >| sometimes without corresponding problem-solving efforts.  I also don't
| >| >| think that "wait until it is ready" is a practical method for a
| >| >| project this big with this much change and with so much
| >| >| inter-dependency between components.
| >| >
| >| >Again, I agree.  However, because the project is that big, I believe
| >| >branching  proposals should meet consensus among developers.
| >| >
| >| In contrast, I don't see consensus as achievable in this group.  We
| >
| >That says a lot.
| >
| Note that I didn't say "cooperation"; I said "consensus", which means
| that everyone agrees.

No.  "everyone agrees" means "unanimity", and I consciously avoided
that term.

-- Gaby