On 15 April 2007 23:51, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> The broader question of why there are so many 124 P3 or higher
> regressions against 4.2.0 points to a more fundamental problem.
> Despite the fact that virtually all of the bugs open against 4.2.0 are
> also open against 4.1 or 4.3 -- or both! -- there seems to be little
> interest in fixing them.
>
> Some have suggested that I try to solve this by closing GCC 4.3
> development until 4.2.0 is done. I've considered that, but I don't
> think it's a good idea. In practice, this whole software freedom thing
> means that people can go off and do things on their own anyhow; people
> who are more motivated to add features than fix bugs are likely just to
> keep doing that, and wait for mainline to reopen.
So here's a second possibility: delete the 4.2 branch, and start again with
a fresh release branch. Call it 4.2 again, although it would be more-or-less
what we're expecting to be 4.3. Maybe it would be not just simplest but also
most effective to cut our losses and try again.
> However, I would consider asking the SC for permission to institute a
> rule that would prevent contributors responsible for P1 bugs (in the
> only possible bright-line sense: that the bug appeared as a result of
> their patch) from checking in changes on mainline until the P1 bug was
> resolved. This would provide an individual incentive for each of us to
> clean up our own mess. I'm certain that someone will raise the "latent
> bug" issue, but that's not the common case. And, we can always decide
> to make an exception if necessary. Of course, if we do this, I'd be
> happy to recuse myself as necessary, in order to avoid any appearance of
> favoritism towards CodeSourcery personnel.
>
> What do people think of that suggestion?
I think it runs the risk of seeming finger-pointy and causing political
reactions, but I wouldn't object to it as a new working practice.
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
