On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> fOn Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
Stage 2 has been missing for 7 years now, Stages 3 and 4 seem to blur
together, the "regression only" rule is more like "non-invasive fixes
only" (likewise for the support branches).
fOn Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> Stage 2 has been missing for 7 years now, Stages 3 and 4 seem to blur
>>> together, the "regression only" rule is more like "non-invasive fixes
>>> only" (likewise for the support branches).
>> Don't stage3 and stage4 differ in that substantial change
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
>> Behalf Of James Greenhalgh
>
> Hi James,
>
>>
>> The stages, timings, and exact rules for which patches are acceptable
>> and when, seem to have drifted quite substantiall
> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On
> Behalf Of James Greenhalgh
Hi James,
>
> The stages, timings, and exact rules for which patches are acceptable
> and when, seem to have drifted quite substantially from that page.
> Stage 2 has been missing for 7 years now, Stages
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 09:37:36AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Honggyu Kim wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would like to know about the stages of development plan so I checked the
> > following article:
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
[Just Bike-shedding...]
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Honggyu Kim wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I would like to know about the stages of development plan so I checked the
> following article:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
>
> I have reported a bug recently but didn't clearly understand the term "stage
> 4" here.
> https
