Date:	Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:16:13 +0200
From:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer:	The Bat! (v1.61) Personal
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
Message-ID:	<162253722523.20021015161613@softhome.net>
To:	DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: 2.03 vs 3.2
In-Reply-To:	<3DAC116D.8DF6BDF7@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
References:	<10210141948 DOT AA19018 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
	<30240030515 DOT 20021015122801 AT softhome DOT net>
	<3DAC116D DOT 8DF6BDF7 AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	15 Oct 2002 14:14:31.0781 (UTC) FILETIME=[2E4FA950:01C27455]
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

>> BTW, I think we really should start using branches in future - as soon
>> as we don't accept new features into 2.04 we should branch it off. DJ
>> once objected, according to him branches are PITA to merge, however
>> current situation is even bigger PITA. What do you think?

> I believe the time and effort needed to cope with CVS merges would be better
> spent getting 2.04 out sooner.

We're talking about slightly different things there - I mean if we
will have to go through refreshes again in future, then IMHO it will
be easier if say, trivial bugfixes, are checked into mainline and
release branch at once. No need to search for them anymore, if need
arises.

However, I'm not 2.04 release manager nor 2.03 refresher, so my
opinion isn't backed by experience and might be wrong.

> Why do you want to rebuild 2.03 with gcc 3.x? (I can think of some reasons
> (e.g. debugging all/part of libc), but I'm interested to know why you want
> to.)

Well, I'm just used to it. If it will require too much effort, I'll
just give up it.

Laurynas

- Raw text -