On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:17:25AM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 12:37:14PM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote:
> > > > It sounds like gcc-3.1 or gcc-3.2 will be archaic and buggy
> > > > by the time that 5.2 and 5.3 come out.
> > >
> > > How would gcc-3.2 get more buggy over time than it is today??
> >
> > I said it was buggy.  Do you mean to imply that gcc-3.2 doesn't have a
> > single bug in it?
> Labling software as "buggy" is a major put down.  If GCC 3.2 is "buggy"
> because it has at least one bug; then FreeBSD 4.7 will also be buggy as
> hell.

A year from now it probably will be seen as being buggy as hell and i
think you're taking the description of "buggy" far too personally...
Software has bugs, over time those bugs surface, some of them are due to
design flaws which mean they don't get fixed in older versions and
also developers tend to abandon support of older versions.  The perception
is that the software becomes buggy and it becomes frustrating to work with
that software, even if you were perfectly happy with it a year ago.

> > Admittedly I should have said "unmaintained" though -- point being that
> > the bugs in it wouldn't be getting fixed by gcc developers who would
> > rather fix them in 3.3...
> We don't maintain 3.x either -- much to the disappointment of some that
> based products or major deployments on it.  But I do think we support the
> current release branch much better than the GCC people do.  We have a
> much more liberal MFC policy which lets us continue to fix invasive bugs
> and add new features.

Even more reason to try to get as current with gcc as possible with 5.0 --
if they're not liberally "MFC'ing" to 3.2 then it makes sense to launch
5.0 on a pre-3.3.  Otherwise its up to the FreeBSD developers to try to
duplicate the gcc developers efforts and patch gcc-3.2 in the 5.0 tree.

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

Reply via email to