Re: release schedule for 1.9? (Was: Re: automake -vs- huge projects (1st patch))

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "adl" == Alexandre Duret-Lutz <address@hidden> writes:

adl> Also, since we have switched to API-numbering, bumping that
adl> version number has a cost.  For instance Debian distributes
adl> automake1.4, automake1.6, automake1.7, and automake1.8.  If we
adl> add another API, it'd better be worth it.

Yeah.  It turns out that Red Hat still ships 1.5 because some packages
still depend on it.  Sigh.  Obviously this doesn't scale -- at some
point it has to be so painless to upgrade that someone like Debian or
Red Hat can simply ditch 1.x and convert everything to 1.x+1 all at
once.

adl> Maybe we could release an "official snapshot" of HEAD?  This may
adl> also help to better test these uncertain subdir-suffix-rules.
adl> Would that be enough?

It might.  Unfortunately I don't think we can unilaterally make a
decision like this.  We'll have to involve the other gcc maintainers.
I think the ideal for gcc is to have the entire tree requiring a
single released version of automake.  But, we'll never know if we can
do it until we try :-)

Tom