From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6219 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2002 05:32:05 -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 6156 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2002 05:32:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (213.95.15.193) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Mar 2002 05:32:04 -0000 Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Hermes.suse.de [213.95.15.136]) by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E080B1E1D0; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:32:03 +0100 (MET) Received: from aj by arthur.inka.de with local (Exim 3.34 #1) id 16q62T-00082P-00; Wed, 27 Mar 2002 06:32:01 +0100 Mail-Copies-To: never To: David Edelsohn Cc: Richard Henderson , Zack Weinberg , Jim Blandy , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gcc development schedule [Re: sharing libcpp between GDB and GCC] References: <200203262236.RAA26398@makai.watson.ibm.com> From: Andreas Jaeger Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002 21:32:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200203262236.RAA26398@makai.watson.ibm.com> (David Edelsohn's message of "Tue, 26 Mar 2002 17:36:32 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090006 (Oort Gnus v0.06) XEmacs/21.4 (Artificial Intelligence, i386-suse-linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2 David Edelsohn writes: >>>>>> Richard Henderson writes: > > Richard> I think this is a mistake. It is completely unreasonable to have > Richard> the entire "major structural changes" time period concurrent with > Richard> "please work on making a release happen". > > Richard> I've been working under the assumption that the current schedule can > Richard> be changed, so that I can help Diego with the language independent > Richard> tree-ish IL after the 3.1 release. > > I agree. We do not have enough developer bandwidth to work on > major, new changes concurrently with the release process. Even after GCC > 3.1.0 is released, we will need to assess how much effort will be required > for the GCC 3.1.1 bug-fix release the following quarter. I agree, too. Even if development is done on branches, it takes time to bring changes back into mainline in a clean way: test them properly on various platforms, split them in small pieces, get them reviewed,... 2 months is not enough for this - and then you should be working on the same time on getting a good release out. An 8 or 10 month release cycle seems more approbriate with the GCC man power. Andreas -- Andreas Jaeger SuSE Labs aj@suse.de private aj@arthur.inka.de http://www.suse.de/~aj