From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18212 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2002 23:40:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 17950 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2002 23:40:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO igw3.watson.ibm.com) (198.81.209.18) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Mar 2002 23:40:17 -0000 Received: from sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com [9.2.112.57]) by igw3.watson.ibm.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g2QNdiG16364; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:39:44 -0500 Received: from makai.watson.ibm.com (makai.watson.ibm.com [9.2.216.144]) by sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g2QNdiO22634; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:39:44 -0500 Received: from watson.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by makai.watson.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3/8.9.3/01-10-2000) with ESMTP id SAA27636; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:39:43 -0500 Message-Id: <200203262339.SAA27636@makai.watson.ibm.com> To: Tom Lord cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gcc development schedule [Re: sharing libcpp between GDB and GCC] In-Reply-To: Message from Tom Lord of "Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:30:16 PST." <200203262330.PAA01597@emf.net> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 15:40:00 -0000 From: David Edelsohn X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00261.txt.bz2 >>>>> 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