On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 10:00:46AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060511 08:59]: > > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:10:48PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > there were some requests, e.g. by Martin Michlmayr to the release team > > > whether we could switch gcc to 4.1 or not for etch. As we're heading to > > > freeze etch rather soon and also the RC bug count doesn't look too good, > > > and we want to be on time this time :), we think the switch to gcc 4.1 > > > as default should only be made if not more than 20 packages become RC > > > buggy by it. Also, the switch should happen latest 1.5 months prior to > > > freeze, that is Jun 15th. > > > > Additional data point: GCC 4.0 on m68k is mostly crap, and probably the > > reason why we haven't been able to make it back as a release candidate > > architecture yet. > > Yes, known. However, we have to consider what is worse - adding more RC > bugginess on all arches, or being bad to one arch already having some > (other) issues.
Yes, I understand that; I just wanted to explain for people not familiar with the issues, that's all. > And I think the number of 20 new RC bugs is fair to both > sides (or that's at least what we thought when we discussed about the > numbers). Sure. Which is mostly why I'm suggesting to help out. > > One: What's the easiest way to extract the list of gcc-4.1 related bugs > > from the BTS? > > There is none I know - I asked Martin already yesterday on IRC to > provide such a way. Right. For now, I'll start off with suggesting upstream to have a look at #361396 :-) -- Fun will now commence -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
