Re: crosstool status

[Martin Egholm Nielsen <martin at egholm-nielsen dot dk>]

> > one more suggestion (as if you needed any more).  from the recent
> > traffic on this list, it seems that there are still some known bugs in
> > crosstool, which is to be expected, no problem with that. if that's
> > the case, though, i would make the argument that what is warranted is
> > yet another *release candidate*.  0.28-rc40, anyone? :-)
> Please, no, not _another_ -rc.
I don't mind...

> > philosophically (at least in my experience), putting a regular version
> > number on something (0.29? 1.0?) means that it has passed at least
> > some level of Q/A testing, it appears to perform nominally and there
> > are no obvious flaws or show-stoppers in the code that is *already
> > there*.
> The current version does work well in many cases.  That there are
> some issues left is IMHO no reason not to make a regular release.
> (That'd mean you can't make a release as long as bug_count > 0, which
> might very well never be the case :)
Exactly! Especially because Dan is so nice to support each and every 
bleeding edge snapshots of all the different configuration parameters - 
glibc, binutil, gcc, etc.
So I guess, there will never be a CT release that doesn't contain build 
errors - unless we will settle with less than today...

So, the releases in the CT-framework can be CVS snapshots tagged with a 
date or as a version 0.29.X and a table with what configurations build 
and what doesn't.

My 2¢...

// Martin


------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com