Re: gcc development schedule [Re: sharing libcpp between GDB and GCC]

[Tom Lord <lord at emf dot net>]

       I agree.  I think the releases should be an 8-month cycle rather
       than a 6-month cycle.  In other words, 4 months for destabilizing
       changes.

Given the distributed and opportunistic nature of development,
wouldn't a phaseless approach be worth considering?  Ultimately
lower cost for all participants?  Certainly put GCC in the position
of being better able to make near-instant "emergency releases" to correct
defects that escape up-front testing?  Certainly avoid snafus like
Red Hat experienced a little while back?

By "phaseless" I mean an approach in which there is a permanently,
continuously QA'd trunk with a high barrier for changes.  Presumably
along with that, a collection of advanced trunks on which related
destabilizing changes are collected and worked-out.  This is sometimes
called "hierarchical software management" (where the hierarchy is of
lines-of-development, not people).

The path from here to there would seem to be one of simply
beefing up the infrastructure with better automation, and 
better testing tools.

-t