On Sun, 14 May 2006, Ranjit Mathew wrote: > Dave Yost points out that a cursory look at the main table > in: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html > > (which is linked-to from the main page) gives the impression > that 3.4.6 has been our last release. It is very easy to > miss the fine-print-like statement above the table that > refers the reader to develop.html for the 4.x series and > beyond. > > I agree with him and propose that we either retire releases.html > or include information about the 4.x series in that table too.
In the eyes of at least some, especially the dates for the old releases in releases.html are of historical interest, so I'd be quite hesitant to remove these. I'm not sure I agree that it is easy to miss the statement on releases past 4.0.0 on that page, but empircal evidence seems to prove me wrong. As for background, one of the reasons to stop doing this table for 4.0.0 and beyond is to reduce the work of our release managers and avoid potential for inconsistency. Neither of this is really that strong a point (perhaps a minute of work, and little risk of inconsitency when done as part of the release process). Mind to send/commit a patch to complete releases.html with 4.x releases and add a step to releasing.html? (Basically you just need to revert revision 1.26 of that file.) > Note that releases.html claims 3.4.6 is the latest in the > 3.4 series but the main page says 3.4.5 is the last one (but > then the very next line contradicts this line!). This we got addressed finally. (Sorry for the late response, I am finally removing all backlog.) > in fact, why don't we just remove the "Previous release series" > bit for the 3.4 series? It looks a bit odd to have two "Previous > release series" on that page. The 3.4 series is extremely popular among users and operating system distributors and has been active until very recently, so I think we should keep it for some further time. When we are going to release 4.2.0, it's time to go, though. (At that point in time, I predict the 4.1 series to become a more than worthwhile successor as far as usage and quality go.) Gerald
