On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, David Edelsohn wrote:
Andrew Your attitude towards Joern's request for help with a regression was
really
Andrew what got my over the board. Your suggestion that a primary target was
more
Andrew important even for an enhancement matter than over a regression was
really
Gerald Pfeifer writes:
Gerald For the record, I reviewed both the Mission Statement and the GCC 4.1
Gerald release criteria. Neither is really applicable.
My comment said my understanding. You interpret them
differently. Neither of us is representing the entire GCC SC in either
On Feb 26, 2006, at 4:40 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Gerald Pfeifer writes:
Gerald For the record, I reviewed both the Mission Statement and the
GCC 4.1
Gerald release criteria. Neither is really applicable.
My comment said my understanding. You interpret them
differently.
Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, the PowerPC GNU/Linux community seems to want this feature very
badly, and has suggested that failure to incorporate these patches in
GCC 4.1 would be very bad. My feeling is that it is the PowerPC
community which will be harmed if they get
Geoffrey Keating wrote:
Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
However, the PowerPC GNU/Linux community seems to want this feature very
badly, and has suggested that failure to incorporate these patches in
GCC 4.1 would be very bad. My feeling is that it is the PowerPC
community which will
Mark Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I've indicated before, I'm not pleased with this situation either.
It was as much a surprise to me as anyone. There is no question that
this change is not in keeping with our branch policy.
[...]
Also, at the time these changes were suggested for
Gerald Pfeiffer wrote:
Personally, and explicitly not speaking for my employer, I fully agree
with Andrew Pinski that this kind of change is not appropriate for GCC
4.1 at this point in the release cycle.
It is clearly against our development model and negatively impacts our
schedule and
Giovanni Bajo writes:
Giovanni This is a little unfair, though. So now the burden on enforcing the
policy is
Giovanni not on the maintainers that prepare the patches? The people involved
in this
Giovanni change have been working on GCC much longer than those who (later)
objected.
Giovanni
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
This is a little unfair, though. So now the burden on enforcing the policy is
not on the maintainers that prepare the patches?
No, that burden falls on the Release Manager. However, the SC has also
given me considerable latitude to exercise my judgement, which I did. I
Giovanni Bajo writes:
Giovanni This is a little unfair, though. So now the burden on enforcing the
policy is
Giovanni not on the maintainers that prepare the patches? The people
involved in this
Giovanni change have been working on GCC much longer than those who (later)
objected.
Mark Mitchell wrote:
it misses the point that many important resources in GCC are being used in
fixing and testing this new feature, instead of putting GCC in shape for the
release. So the release has been already delayed because of this, and will be
even more. That's something which already
Andrew Pinski writes:
Andrew Your attitude towards Joern's request for help with a regression was
really
Andrew what got my over the board. Your suggestion that a primary target was
more
Andrew important even for an enhancement matter than over a regression was
really
Andrew out of line.
Joe Buck wrote:
I agree that the matter should have been raised far earlier, and that
glibc decisions of this kind should be coordinated with gcc, and in this
case the issue should have been discussed far earlier.
Yes, I completely agree. In fact, I think everyone agrees; Roland has
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
This is OK for mainline and 4.1.
Please cite PR target/25864 in the ChangeLog entry.
Personally, and explicitly not speaking for my employer, I fully agree
with Andrew Pinski that this kind of change is not appropriate for GCC
4.1 at this point in the
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:12:54PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
Personally, and explicitly not speaking for my employer, I fully agree
with Andrew Pinski that this kind of change is not appropriate for GCC
4.1 at this point in the release cycle.
I don't like it either, but what's the
15 matches
Mail list logo
