On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
| In the past, we've had a confusing situation for users, in which
| "upgrading" from one branch to another could result in known
| regressions. In particular, consider our current situation:
|
| * GCC 4.0.2 is the latest release on the 4.0 branch.
|
| *
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Mark Mitchell wrote:
| Matthias Klose wrote:
| > Mark Mitchell writes:
| >> and the 3.4.x branch is official dead at this point.
| >
| > No, see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00189.html
|
| My mistake; thanks for the pointer.
|
| However, that doesn't change the general
Some projects have a time-based release strategy
(e.g. "we release once every six months").
Would it make sense for gcc to do that
for all maintenance releases? e.g.
leave the current process the same for .0
versions, which users are scared of anyway,
but coordinate all other releases
to occur on
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In the past, we've had a confusing situation for users, in which
> "upgrading" from one branch to another could result in known
> regressions. In particular, consider our current situation:
>
> * GCC 4.0.2 is the latest release on the 4.0 branch.
>
> *
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Mark Mitchell writes:
>> and the 3.4.x branch is official dead at this point.
>
> No, see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00189.html
My mistake; thanks for the pointer.
However, that doesn't change the general thrust of my mail; the only
issue is how soon we must be
Mark Mitchell writes:
> and the 3.4.x branch is official dead at this point.
No, see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-12/msg00189.html
Matthias
In the past, we've had a confusing situation for users, in which
"upgrading" from one branch to another could result in known
regressions. In particular, consider our current situation:
* GCC 4.0.2 is the latest release on the 4.0 branch.
* GCC 4.1 will be released soon.
* GCC 4.0.3 will be rel
