Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> a écrit:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Oct 2011, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>> No opinion on your actual question, but note that there is no more
>>> stage2. We now go directly from stage1 to stage3. This is just another
>>> feature of gcc development seemingly designed to confuse newbies, and
>>> evidently even confuses experienced developers.
>>
>> So, let's fix this! In fact, this is something Mark, David and me
>> discussed at the last GCC Summit and which fell through the cracks
>> on my side.
>>
>> Instead of renaming Stage 3 to Stage 2 at that point we figured that
>> using different terminology would reduce confusion. I am not wedded
>> to Stage A and B, though this seems to be the most straightforward
>> option (over colors, Alpha and Beta carrying a different meaning in
>> software development,...).
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Eh - why not give them names with an actual meaning? "Development Stage"
> and "Stabilizing Stage"? I realize those are rather long names, but you
> can always put short forms in tables, like Dev Stage and Stab Stage.
Seconded, for what it's worth.
--
Dodji
