On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 11:18:23AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Eh - why not give them names with an actual meaning? "Development Stage"
> and "Stabilizing Stage"? I realize those are rather long names, but you
> can always put short forms in tables, like Dev Stage and Stab Stage.
Shouldn't w
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Richard Guenther writes:
>> why not give them names with an actual meaning? "Development Stage"
>> and "Stabilizing Stage"? I realize those are rather long names, but you
>> can always put short forms in tables, like Dev Stage and Stab Stage.
Richard Guenther writes:
> why not give them names with an actual meaning? "Development Stage"
> and "Stabilizing Stage"? I realize those are rather long names, but you
> can always put short forms in tables, like Dev Stage and Stab Stage.
The latter is when the knives come out, eh...?
-miles
On 12-06-11 08:20 , Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 06/11/2012 06:27 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Richard Guenther a écrit:
Eh - why not give them names with an actual meaning? "Development Stage"
and "Stabilizing Stage"? I realize those are rather long names, but you
can always put short forms in table
On 06/11/2012 06:27 AM, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
Richard Guenther a écrit:
Eh - why not give them names with an actual meaning? "Development Stage"
and "Stabilizing Stage"? I realize those are rather long names, but you
can always put short forms in tables, like Dev Stage and Stab Stage.
Second
Il 11/06/2012 11:18, Richard Guenther ha scritto:
> > Instead of renaming Stage 3 to Stage 2 at that point we figured that
> > using different terminology would reduce confusion. I am not wedded
> > to Stage A and B, though this seems to be the most straightforward
> > option (over colors, Alpha a
Richard Guenther a écrit:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> No opinion on your actual question, but note that there is no more
>>> stage2. We now go directly from stage1 to stage3. This is just another
>>> feature of g
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> No opinion on your actual question, but note that there is no more
>> stage2. We now go directly from stage1 to stage3. This is just another
>> feature of gcc development seemingly designed
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> No opinion on your actual question, but note that there is no more
> stage2. We now go directly from stage1 to stage3. This is just another
> feature of gcc development seemingly designed to confuse newbies, and
> evidently even confuses experienced
