On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Gerald Pfeifer <ger...@pfeifer.com> wrote: > fOn Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Richard Biener wrote: >>>> Stage 2 has been missing for 7 years now, Stages 3 and 4 seem to blur >>>> together, the "regression only" rule is more like "non-invasive fixes >>>> only" (likewise for the support branches). >>> Don't stage3 and stage4 differ in that substantial changes are still >>> allowed for backends in stage3? >> stage3 is for _general_ bugfixing while stage4 is for _regression_ bugfixing. > > I am wondering, do we want to keep this "forever", or adjust to > the fact that stage 2 has been non-existent for a while? > > We may not want to redefine stage 3 to 2 and stage 4 to 3, but could > use stage A, B, and C? (Or in fact alpha, beta, and RC phases which > is what this essentially has become?)
I think we'd want to transition to more descriptive stage names. Like "Development Stage" (stage1), "Stabilization Stage" (stage3) and "Release Stage" (stage4). Note that Stage 4 is equal to the state release branches are in (but we didn't yet branch for the release), thus "Release Branch Stage" would be even better but also possibly confusing (there isn't a branch). Richard. > > Gerald
