On Fri, 5 Nov 2010, Paul Koning wrote: > On Nov 3, 2010, at 4:02 PM, Paul Koning wrote: > > > Question on what's appropriate... > > More on the same topic: sometimes the words are "bug fixes" and > sometimes "regressions". I tend to think of regressions as "it worked > in version x-1 but it's broken in x". Are long-standing bugs also fair > game in stage 3? Does a bug need to be in bugz to be considered?
Stage 3 is for bug fixes (whether or not in Bugzilla), it's stage 4 that's regression fixes only. When you maintain a back end that is not a primary or secondary target in gcc-4.6/criteria.html, or a front end other than the C and C++ front ends considered in the criteria, you have essentially free rein to decide what goes in your part of the compiler during Stages 3 and 4, whether or not bug or regression fixes - the other side of that is that if you make major changes that destabilise such a back end or front end then we won't delay branching to allow for them to be fixed, and non-bug-fix front-end changes that break the default build for a primary or secondary target are liable to be reverted. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
