Sender: rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID: <3DAC116D.8DF6BDF7@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 14:00:29 +0100
From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586)
X-Accept-Language: de,fr
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: 2.03 vs 3.2
References: <10210141948 DOT AA19018 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <30240030515 DOT 20021015122801 AT softhome DOT net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
[snip]
> BTW, I think we really should start using branches in future - as soon
> as we don't accept new features into 2.04 we should branch it off. DJ
> once objected, according to him branches are PITA to merge, however
> current situation is even bigger PITA. What do you think?

I believe the time and effort needed to cope with CVS merges would be better
spent getting 2.04 out sooner. But it's not my time and effort we're talking
about, so feel free to ignore me. ;)

Why do you want to rebuild 2.03 with gcc 3.x? (I can think of some reasons
(e.g. debugging all/part of libc), but I'm interested to know why you want
to.)

Bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]