On 9/6/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 07 September 2006 01:48, Richard Fish wrote:
> I'm assuming of course that had the gcc team and
> others known how much things would break by stabilizing 4.1 that a
> bigger push would have been made to clean things up before-hand.
I believe the reason why gcc-4.1.1 was stabilized knowing that at least 75
packages still needed to be stabilized in order to compile with gcc-4.1.1 was
that release engineering didn't want to delay the release even further
because of maintainers who didn't respond to stabilization requests in a
timely manner.
I guess I'll just make one more point as well. I don't have any issue
with the idea that some breakage is acceptable in order to push Gentoo
forwards. A policy of _never_ breaking the tree would cause Gentoo to
stagnate, even more than some claim it already has. I would just
prefer more noise be made in advance.
-Richard
--
[email protected] mailing list
