From patchwork Sun Feb 12 19:40:14 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Gerald Pfeifer X-Patchwork-Id: 140829 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EF20AB6FA7 for ; Mon, 13 Feb 2012 06:39:13 +1100 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1329680355; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Date: From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive: List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; bh=2XtiPl9MgDkqsZos8vkR 3bxH1rM=; b=DPJGaxDtmnXE3vV/feQKnzATa81j4BMGq3XiqxSHPPno1t/MnxKh +9AWjHBmHfT2gDKLynFej5Te9fNFNWKewMhGZhSW8CMv1LseltE358p1jHdxP2j5 JDUhc8rOEc6WxpLZihBtrVVCwcWH39gd1mH7NbcM5kppJXG0JKqc/SM= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-IsSubscribed:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=Oxr4Pc9RV2MNDRMv0o4uA9MO3w775xNqkkwQZa7Z5NG0E/n8L+deta32nm7iOa sReJb7AeRWjzWpEXCVElIqJ5gAkrZ0H8P3APt9z6CzE+G8OduXhEot3qGvtGOZfV Em2oiA1aXJEuJ0MY8IpQcxmKn4HwuHJAV3Ks3+FUfJA7Q=; Received: (qmail 5492 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2012 19:39:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 5482 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Feb 2012 19:39:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ainaz.pair.com (HELO ainaz.pair.com) (209.68.2.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:38:57 +0000 Received: from ip-2-205-241-53.web.vodafone.de (ip-2-205-241-53.web.vodafone.de [2.205.241.53]) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6D2333F416 for ; Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:38:55 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2012 20:40:14 +0100 (CET) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [wwwdocs] Shorten rationale for development plan Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org This was totally suitable for when it was written; us now having had this in place for ages and approaching GCC 4.7, make this a bit shorter, by about a fourth, and make the context in time more explicit. Applied. Gerald Index: develop.html =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/develop.html,v retrieving revision 1.120 diff -u -3 -p -r1.120 develop.html --- develop.html 2 Jan 2012 11:52:41 -0000 1.120 +++ develop.html 12 Feb 2012 18:50:55 -0000 @@ -26,21 +26,16 @@ rejected by the

Rationale

-

It has been difficult for us to make consistent, high-quality -releases that support a wide variety of targets. In particular, GCC -3.0 achieved a high standard of quality on many targets, but was by no -means perfect, and failed to support as many targets as we would have -liked.

- -

In addition, the release was late relative to original scheduling -estimates. And, the time between the GCC 2.95 and GCC 3.0 releases -was longer than everyone would have liked. We think that we will -better serve the user community by making releases somewhat more -frequently, and on a consistent schedule.

- -

In addition, a consistent schedule will make it possible for a -Release Manager to better understand his or her time commitment will -be when he or she agrees to take the job.

+

Late in the GCC 2.x series and then GCC 3.x we struggled making +consistent, high-quality releases for as wide a variety of targets +as we would have liked. GCC 3.0 came late relative to original +scheduling estimates and the time between the GCC 2.95 and GCC 3.0 +releases was longer than everyone would have liked.

+ +

We think that more frequent releases on a consistent schedule +serve our user communities better. In addition, a consistent schedule +makes it possible for Release Managers to better understand what they +are signing up for.

Development Methodology