On 1/5/07, David Fang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Are 4.0 snapshots still necessary? I suspect they should be
> > > > discontinued.
> > >
> > > 4.0 still seems to be regarded as an active branch.
> > >
> > > I don't mind closing it, myself. Does anybody think we should have a
> > > 4.0.4 release?
> >
> > I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open because
> > they are targeted for 4.0.4 (fixed on all branches but 4_0).
>
> I'd like to see it closed, too, all Linux/BSD vendors I know of are either
> still using 3.x or have switched to 4.1 already.
Hi,
User chiming in: before retiring 4.0, one would be more easily convinced
to make a transition to 4.1+ if the regressions from 4.0 to 4.1 numbered
fewer. In the database, I see only 79 (P3+) regressions in 4.1 that are
not in 4.0 (using only summary matching). Will these get a bit more
attention for the upcoming 4.1.2 release?
Well, I certainly see more attention on 4.1 regressions than on 4.0 regressions,
but as 4.0 almost get's no attention there is no hint that retiring
4.0 will magically free resources to tackle more 4.1 problems.
Richard.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/query.cgi?query_format=advanced&short_desc_type=allwordssubstr&short_desc=4.1&known_to_fail_type=allwordssubstr&known_to_work_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc_type=allwordssubstr&long_desc=&bug_file_loc_type=allwordssubstr&bug_file_loc=&gcchost_type=allwordssubstr&gcchost=&gcctarget_type=allwordssubstr&gcctarget=&gccbuild_type=allwordssubstr&gccbuild=&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=&bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=SUSPENDED&bug_status=WAITING&bug_status=REOPENED&priority=P1&priority=P2&priority=P3&emailtype1=substring&email1=&emailtype2=substring&email2=&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&query_based_on=4.1%20%5C%204.0%20regressions&negate0=1&field0-0-0=short_desc&type0-0-0=substring&value0-0-0=4.0&field0-1-0=noop&type0-1-0=noop&value0-1-0=
Fang
