Re: Status of trunk freeze

[Mark Mitchell]

Steve Kargl wrote:

> What's the status of the trunk freeze for going from stage
> 1 to stage 2?  AFAICT, the number of regression on trunk
> has increased since you sent
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-06/msg00411.html

The important question is whether that change reflects more bugs being
introduced or just more bugs being found.  I think it's the latter, in
which case that doesn't indicate that quality is getting worse.

> There have been a number of commits to trunk that do not
> address regressions.

That's disappointing, if true.  My previous message was pretty clear on
this point:

> Other then the merges mentioned
> above, and documentation improvements, the only patches that should be
> committed during the lockdown are fixes for regressions.

I do think that attention to quality is something that we need to
improve.  People who are contributing fixes for regressions are doing
something which is just as important as people who are contributing new
optimizations.

I will be sending out a status report shortly.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(650) 331-3385 x713

Status of trunk freeze

[Steve Kargl]

Mark,

What's the status of the trunk freeze for going from stage
1 to stage 2?  AFAICT, the number of regression on trunk
has increased since you sent

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-06/msg00411.html

There have been a number of commits to trunk that do not
address regressions.

I've been holding the ISO C Binding patch (which only
affects Fortran and has 0 regressions) while trunk
was supposely undergoing a transition from stage 1
to stage 2.

Is it time to freeze all commits to all branches and
trunk unless it is a patch that address a regression?

-- 
Steve