From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21197 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2002 00:03:53 -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 21153 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2002 00:03:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO emf.net) (205.149.0.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 00:03:52 -0000 Received: (from lord@localhost) by emf.net (K/K) id QAA04072; Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:03:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 16:03:00 -0000 From: Tom Lord Message-Id: <200203270003.QAA04072@emf.net> To: dje@watson.ibm.com CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <200203262339.SAA27636@makai.watson.ibm.com> (message from David Edelsohn on Tue, 26 Mar 2002 18:39:43 -0500) Subject: Re: gcc development schedule [Re: sharing libcpp between GDB and GCC] References: <200203262339.SAA27636@makai.watson.ibm.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00262.txt.bz2 From: David Edelsohn Because many users (both inviduals and companies) want a schedule so that they can plan releases. That is an orthogonal issue. GCC has operated [under a continuous release management, hierarchical software management model] and it was not very effective. You are quite mistaken. The GCC project has never operated that way. The approach I am suggesting is an evolutionary step beyond the current practices and is quite consistent with the SC development goals. -t