On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 03:02:00PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > > > [ omitting gcc-patches ] > > > > On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Joe Buck wrote: > > > I'd like to see it closed. We have some bugs that are only open > > > because they are targeted for 4.0.4 (fixed on all branches but 4_0). > > > > If there is consensus, I'll be happy to take the appropriate steps, > > which include: > > > > 1. Updating our web pages > > 2. Sending a notification to the gcc list > > 3. Running a final snapshot (so that we have a tarball matching > > the head of that tree) > > 4. Stopping the snapshot mechanism > > > > How about waiting ten days, say, see whether anyone has substantial > > objections, and proceed as noted above? (We are usually operating > > on Internet time, but giving people more than a week is fair, I think.) > > > I am willing to be the release manager for 4.0.4 if nobody else > steps up to the base for this.
I think it would be great to have more people have the experience of being release manager. We haven't heard from Gaby, who handled 4.0.3. The SC will need to discuss what to do; it has to approve a 4.0.4 release and an RM. My personal preference would be as follows: - One final 4.0.4 release, with a very conservative approach; either just ship what's already there on 4_0-branch or be extremely cautious about backporting a very limited number of fixes. - After the release (and a couple of days to allow for "brown paper bag" syndrome), close all bugs that are open only because of 4.0 (there are lots of "4.0 regression" bugs that aren't in 4.1/2/3) and close the branch.
