On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Matthias Andree wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2000, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> > I've heard Alan mention specifics.. search the archives. (I rather
> > doubt that our maintainers feel particularly obligated to prove spit
> > to your personal satisfaction) Live with it.
> So since Jes is not the KERNEL nor the X86 tree maintainer, he has not
> to comment on that issue, but is spreading FUD. Live with it.
> Sorry, no offense, but since Alan considers gcc 2.95.2 as fine for
> 2.2.17pre, I cannot see any further reason to stick with decrepit egcs.
If Alan says it's fine as of 2.2.17preX, it's _fine as of 2.2.17preX_.
Point being that Alan is the person who makes maintainability decisions
for the 2.2 tree and whether you or I see/agree or not is meaningless.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 07 2000 - 21:00:07 EST