Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steven Bosscher wrote:
Or should the development plan beupdated to reflect your new way of working (ie. the projects info collecting thing) and the actual development schedule that we seem to be working on.
It would probably be good if the development document was updated to reflect the new procedure -- after we're sure we like it. I'm a little hesitant to take the 4.0 experiment and judge it "the Right Way" at this point. Let's see how 4.1 goes.
If you still think that the current development document describes "the Right Way", then we should be following it. If not, then could we have a document saying what we *are* following? Otherwise, it's really just whatever your whim is, and that goes against the spirit (and the mission statement) of the GCC project.
Since you and Steven seem to think that it would be helpful to update the document, I'll put that on my to-do list.
I spend a lot of time thinking about how to make this process work more smoothly, and I spend a lot of time talking to people -- including you -- about how they think it should work.
I don't think the current document decribes the ideal procedure; if I did, I wouldn't be soliciting project proposals. It was no secret that I planned to ask for proposals early in Stage 1 for 4.1; that was announced after the request-for-proposal experiment in GCC 4.0 worked out well.
This is a relatively minor change to the development plan; it's a refinement of how things get sequenced in Stage 1, in the hopes that we can avoid the mainline becoming more unstable than necessary, and so that everyone can see -- and comment on -- what's going to be going in before it actually gets merged. I consider that to be rather more in keeping with the openness described in the GCC mission statement than simply posting a message saying "I merged in the foo branch".
-- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery, LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] (916) 791-8304
