These arguments are all quite familiar- I'm not really moved one way or the other.
The point here is that major changes need to be very visible on a product's schedule. You can argue that it isn't a major change- but I'd assert that any toolchain change *is* a major change. I'm *not* arguing against the change- I don't know nearly enough to have an opinion. I *am* commenting on how major changes coming in with little notice often add substantial delays. Furthermore, lack of putting such changes up in such a fashion that a folks in distributed development environment can then adequately plan/protect themselves so *their* stuff is protected is also an issue. Look- if Alexander hadn't said anything, I *probably* wouldn't have noticed. However, he felt that this was important enough to tease people with a "10 minutes until the bombs start falling" mail message. It's not unreasonable to raise this as an issue. Or if you think it *is* unreasonable, we can go offline so I can discuss it. -matt On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Peter Wemm wrote: > Matthew Jacob wrote: > > > This would have been a firing offense at several companies I've worked > > at. It's not unreasonable to take a lesson from *why* these things are > > firing offenses and start to raise queries. I've done so. Duty is done. > > Go back to sleep. > > Would you rather that we ship with a known broken prerelease compiler? > > Would you rather that we changed from 3.1-prerelease to 3.1.1-release? > > gcc-3.2 *is* 'gcc-3.1.1 + ABI bugfix'. They renamed the 3.1 branch to 3.2. > All future 3.1.x releases will be called 3.2.x. > > Cheers, > -Peter > -- > Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message