Re: Huh, gcc 2.95.3?
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 11:42:22AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 04:03:45PM +0100, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> > > > Happy new year to everyone!
> > > >
> > > > gcc 2.95.3 appeared in Sid, but it hasn't been announced by the
> > > > GCC steering committee yet. Is this some kind of early access
> > > > version?
> > >
> > > It's based on the CVS branch, which is noted in the changelog if you had
> > > bothered to read it. There's no such thing as "early access", this is
> > > open source you know :)
> > Ack!(tm). Not shades of rh7, I hope? I know that people using sid (like
> > myself) are willingly sado-masochists, but a CVS GCC?
> Uh, GCC 2.95.3 CVS NOT 2.96 OR 2.97! Please be careful what you say. We
> are talking about a stable release here, not a dripping wet development
So what was the CVS branch reference?