> That was because the patches were not being submitted back
> against the unadulterated distribution code someone who had
> signed the assignment of rights to the FSF.

That was because GCC 2.95.x branch is closed for maintenance. The is no
need in complex theory when a simple explanation is more than adequate.

> It was also about trolling the mailing lists to cause just this
> sort of heated discussion (congradulations on playing into
> Jesse Gross's trolling here).

Sorry, guilty as charged.

I was trying to get a people opinion on the issue. I will gladly
volunteer to import a new version of GCC into -CURRENT myself, if
there are no objections and if nobody is doing that already. I think
David got a point though and I want his proposal to be discussed more.
GCC 3.2 is an interim release and under no circumstances we should get
tied to it through all the 5.x branch lifetime. No one will give a damn
about it once 3.3 goes into maintenance.

> Can *you* absolutely *guarantee* no binary incompatabilities
> between 3.3, as it sits now, in experimental form, and the final
> release of 3.3?  If not, then I don't see why are exploding at
> me.

3.1-pre to 3.2 upgrade breaks compatibility already. Can you guarantee
that 3.3 will be backwards compatible with 3.2? This is yet another
potential ABI breakage at the time when we'll be _forced_ to upgrade.
How often do you expect GCC developers to break ABI with release
scheduled to happed and the end of the year? 

Alexander Kabaev

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to