From: David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com>
To: Tom Lord <lord@emf.net>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: gcc development schedule [Re: sharing libcpp between GDB and GCC]
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:40:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200203262339.SAA27636@makai.watson.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Message from Tom Lord <lord@emf.net> of "Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:30:16 PST." <200203262330.PAA01597@emf.net>
>>>>> Tom Lord writes:
Tom> Given the distributed and opportunistic nature of development,
Tom> wouldn't a phaseless approach be worth considering? Ultimately
Tom> lower cost for all participants? Certainly put GCC in the position
Tom> of being better able to make near-instant "emergency releases" to correct
Tom> defects that escape up-front testing? Certainly avoid snafus like
Tom> Red Hat experienced a little while back?
Because many users (both inviduals and companies) want a schedule
so that they can plan releases.
Tom, may I suggest that you take some time to learn how the GCC
Development Plan came into existance. As with the GCC SC issue, you are
making suggestions based on invalid premises. GCC has operated the other
way and it was not very effective.
Thanks, David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-03-26 23:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-03-25 15:40 sharing libcpp between GDB and GCC Jim Blandy
2002-03-25 20:07 ` Zack Weinberg
2002-03-25 23:18 ` Neil Booth
2002-03-26 14:29 ` gcc development schedule [Re: sharing libcpp between GDB and GCC] Richard Henderson
2002-03-26 14:37 ` David Edelsohn
2002-03-26 21:32 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-03-26 15:17 ` Neil Booth
2002-03-26 15:30 ` Tom Lord
2002-03-26 15:40 ` David Edelsohn [this message]
2002-03-26 16:03 ` Tom Lord
2002-03-26 16:41 ` Tim Hollebeek
2002-03-26 22:23 ` Eli Zaretskii
2002-03-26 22:43 ` Tom Lord
2002-03-27 7:18 ` mike stump
2002-03-27 9:00 ` law
2002-03-27 10:13 ` Neil Booth
2002-03-26 22:45 ` Tom Lord
2002-03-26 23:11 ` Daniel Berlin
2002-03-26 23:53 ` Tom Lord
2002-03-27 4:32 ` Fergus Henderson
2002-03-27 6:30 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-03-27 6:43 ` Gianni Mariani
2002-03-26 22:39 ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-03-26 22:54 ` Tom Lord
2002-03-26 15:31 ` Zack Weinberg
2002-03-27 6:01 Robert Dewar
2002-03-27 19:17 Kaveh R. Ghazi
2002-03-27 19:46 ` Zack Weinberg
2002-03-28 1:24 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2002-03-28 1:53 ` Jason Molenda
2002-03-28 2:01 ` Jason Molenda
2002-03-28 7:17 ` Christopher Faylor
2002-03-28 9:01 ` David O'Brien
2002-03-28 21:29 ` Christopher Faylor
2002-03-28 9:00 ` David O'Brien
2002-04-03 14:19 ` Jim Blandy
2002-04-03 14:29 ` Phil Edwards
2002-03-28 12:34 ` Phil Edwards
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200203262339.SAA27636@makai.watson.ibm.com \
--to=dje@watson.ibm.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=lord@emf.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox