On Feb 26, 2006, at 4:40 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Gerald Pfeifer writes:
Gerald> For the record, I reviewed both the Mission Statement and the
GCC 4.1
Gerald> release criteria. Neither is really applicable.
My comment said "my understanding". You interpret them
differently. Nei
> Gerald Pfeifer writes:
Gerald> For the record, I reviewed both the Mission Statement and the GCC 4.1
Gerald> release criteria. Neither is really applicable.
My comment said "my understanding". You interpret them
differently. Neither of us is representing the entire GCC SC in eit
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, David Edelsohn wrote:
>Andrew> Your attitude towards Joern's request for help with a regression was
>really
>Andrew> what got my over the board. Your suggestion that a primary target was
>more
>Andrew> important even for an enhancement matter than over a regression was
>real
Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>However, the PowerPC GNU/Linux community seems to want this feature very
>>badly, and has suggested that failure to incorporate these patches in
>>GCC 4.1 would be very bad. My feeling is that it is the PowerPC
>>community
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, the PowerPC GNU/Linux community seems to want this feature very
> badly, and has suggested that failure to incorporate these patches in
> GCC 4.1 would be very bad. My feeling is that it is the PowerPC
> community which will be harmed if they g
> Andrew Pinski writes:
Andrew> Your attitude towards Joern's request for help with a regression was
really
Andrew> what got my over the board. Your suggestion that a primary target was
more
Andrew> important even for an enhancement matter than over a regression was
really
Andrew> out of l
Mark Mitchell wrote:
>>it misses the point that many important resources in GCC are being used in
>>fixing and testing this new feature, instead of putting GCC in shape for the
>>release. So the release has been already delayed because of this, and will be
>>even more. That's something which alrea
>
> > Giovanni Bajo writes:
>
> Giovanni> This is a little unfair, though. So now the burden on enforcing the
> policy is
> Giovanni> not on the maintainers that prepare the patches? The people
> involved in this
> Giovanni> change have been working on GCC much longer than those who (later)
Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> This is a little unfair, though. So now the burden on enforcing the policy is
> not on the maintainers that prepare the patches?
No, that burden falls on the Release Manager. However, the SC has also
given me considerable latitude to exercise my judgement, which I did. I
> Giovanni Bajo writes:
Giovanni> This is a little unfair, though. So now the burden on enforcing the
policy is
Giovanni> not on the maintainers that prepare the patches? The people involved
in this
Giovanni> change have been working on GCC much longer than those who (later)
objected.
Giova
Gerald Pfeiffer wrote:
> Personally, and explicitly not speaking for my employer, I fully agree
> with Andrew Pinski that this kind of change is not appropriate for GCC
> 4.1 at this point in the release cycle.
>
> It is clearly against our development model and negatively impacts our
> schedule
Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I've indicated before, I'm not pleased with this situation either.
> It was as much a surprise to me as anyone. There is no question that
> this change is not in keeping with our branch policy.
> [...]
> Also, at the time these changes were suggeste
Joe Buck wrote:
> I agree that the matter should have been raised far earlier, and that
> glibc decisions of this kind should be coordinated with gcc, and in this
> case the issue should have been discussed far earlier.
Yes, I completely agree. In fact, I think everyone agrees; Roland has
sugges
On Sat, Feb 04, 2006 at 09:12:54PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> Personally, and explicitly not speaking for my employer, I fully agree
> with Andrew Pinski that this kind of change is not appropriate for GCC
> 4.1 at this point in the release cycle.
I don't like it either, but what's the altern
On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> This is OK for mainline and 4.1.
> Please cite PR target/25864 in the ChangeLog entry.
Personally, and explicitly not speaking for my employer, I fully agree
with Andrew Pinski that this kind of change is not appropriate for GCC
4.1 at this point in the
15 matches
Mail list logo
