From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23984 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2004 21:16:31 -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 23934 invoked from network); 3 Jul 2004 21:16:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO aragorn.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.23) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Jul 2004 21:16:31 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-206-118.inter.net.il [80.230.206.118]) by aragorn.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id DOF72587; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 00:16:27 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 21:16:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) Message-Id: <2914-Sun04Jul2004001640+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040703114543.71C864B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> (mec.gnu@mindspring.com) Subject: Re: Delay the branch for E500 native support Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20040703114543.71C864B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2004 07:45:43 -0400 (EDT) > From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) > > The disadvantage of feature-based scheduling is that right after > each feature comes one more feature. I didn't suggest feature-based schedule, I just said that we shouldn't be treating time-based schedule as too sacred. Also, we are not talking about adding a new feature, we are talking about finishing a feature that's already in the codebase.