* [patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline
@ 2004-09-21 20:30 Andrew Cagney
2004-09-22 0:58 ` Joel Brobecker
2004-10-05 18:36 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2004-09-21 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 422 bytes --]
Hello,
Ref: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-08/msg00028.html
This patch implements the proposed change of GDB's mainline version
number so that it includes dot-five-o (6.2.50).
This also adds a new chapter to the internal documentation that
describes GDB's version/branch process (it pulls together some
previously uncommitted changes and an old subsection of the branch process).
comments?
doco ok?
Andrew
[-- Attachment #2: diffs --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 12537 bytes --]
Index: doc/ChangeLog
2004-09-21 Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
* gdbint.texinfo (Versions and Branches): New chapter.
(Releasing GDB): Delete "Versions and Branches" section.
(Top): Add "Versions and Branches".
Index: ChangeLog
2004-09-21 Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
* version.in: Bump to version 6.3.50.
Index: version.in
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/version.in,v
retrieving revision 1.1169
diff -p -c -r1.1169 version.in
*** version.in 21 Sep 2004 00:00:02 -0000 1.1169
--- version.in 21 Sep 2004 20:20:10 -0000
***************
*** 1 ****
! 2004-09-21-cvs
--- 1 ----
! 6.3.50_2004-09-21-cvs
Index: doc/gdbint.texinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.224
diff -p -c -r1.224 gdbint.texinfo
*** doc/gdbint.texinfo 12 Sep 2004 15:20:49 -0000 1.224
--- doc/gdbint.texinfo 21 Sep 2004 20:20:12 -0000
*************** as the mechanisms that adapt @value{GDBN
*** 84,89 ****
--- 84,90 ----
* Support Libraries::
* Coding::
* Porting GDB::
+ * Versions and Branches::
* Releasing GDB::
* Testsuite::
* Hints::
*************** target-dependent @file{.h} and @file{.c}
*** 5368,5476 ****
configuration.
@end itemize
! @node Releasing GDB
! @chapter Releasing @value{GDBN}
! @cindex making a new release of gdb
! @section Versions and Branches
! @subsection Version Identifiers
! @value{GDBN}'s version is determined by the file @file{gdb/version.in}.
! @value{GDBN}'s mainline uses ISO dates to differentiate between
! versions. The CVS repository uses @var{YYYY}-@var{MM}-@var{DD}-cvs
! while the corresponding snapshot uses @var{YYYYMMDD}.
!
! @value{GDBN}'s release branch uses a slightly more complicated scheme.
! When the branch is first cut, the mainline version identifier is
! prefixed with the @var{major}.@var{minor} from of the previous release
! series but with .90 appended. As draft releases are drawn from the
! branch, the minor minor number (.90) is incremented. Once the first
! release (@var{M}.@var{N}) has been made, the version prefix is updated
! to @var{M}.@var{N}.0.90 (dot zero, dot ninety). Follow on releases have
! an incremented minor minor version number (.0).
! Using 5.1 (previous) and 5.2 (current), the example below illustrates a
! typical sequence of version identifiers:
! @table @asis
! @item 5.1.1
! final release from previous branch
! @item 2002-03-03-cvs
! main-line the day the branch is cut
! @item 5.1.90-2002-03-03-cvs
! corresponding branch version
! @item 5.1.91
! first draft release candidate
! @item 5.1.91-2002-03-17-cvs
! updated branch version
! @item 5.1.92
! second draft release candidate
! @item 5.1.92-2002-03-31-cvs
! updated branch version
! @item 5.1.93
! final release candidate (see below)
! @item 5.2
! official release
! @item 5.2.0.90-2002-04-07-cvs
! updated CVS branch version
! @item 5.2.1
! second official release
! @end table
! Notes:
! @itemize @bullet
! @item
! Minor minor minor draft release candidates such as 5.2.0.91 have been
! omitted from the example. Such release candidates are, typically, never
! made.
! @item
! For 5.1.93 the bziped tar ball @file{gdb-5.1.93.tar.bz2} is just the
! official @file{gdb-5.2.tar} renamed and compressed.
! @end itemize
To avoid version conflicts, vendors are expected to modify the file
@file{gdb/version.in} to include a vendor unique alphabetic identifier
(an official @value{GDBN} release never uses alphabetic characters in
! its version identifer).
! Since @value{GDBN} does not make minor minor minor releases (e.g.,
! 5.1.0.1) the conflict between that and a minor minor draft release
! identifier (e.g., 5.1.0.90) is avoided.
! @subsection Branches
! @value{GDBN} draws a release series (5.2, 5.2.1, @dots{}) from a single
! release branch (gdb_5_2-branch). Since minor minor minor releases
! (5.1.0.1) are not made, the need to branch the release branch is avoided
! (it also turns out that the effort required for such a a branch and
! release is significantly greater than the effort needed to create a new
! release from the head of the release branch).
! Releases 5.0 and 5.1 used branch and release tags of the form:
! @smallexample
! gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branchpoint
! gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branch
! gdb_M_N-YYYY-MM-DD-release
! @end smallexample
! Release 5.2 is trialing the branch and release tags:
! @smallexample
! gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branchpoint
! gdb_N_M-branch
! gdb_M_N-YYYY-MM-DD-release
@end smallexample
! @emph{Pragmatics: The branchpoint and release tags need to identify when
! a branch and release are made. The branch tag, denoting the head of the
! branch, does not have this criteria.}
@section Branch Commit Policy
--- 5369,5566 ----
configuration.
@end itemize
! @node Versions and Branches
! @chapter Versions and Branches
! @section Versions
! @value{GDBN}'s version is determined by the file
! @file{gdb/version.in} and takes one of the following forms:
! @table @asis
! @item @var{major}.@var{minor}
! @itemx @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}
! an official release (e.g., 6.0 or 6.0.1).
! @item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD}
! a snapshot (e.g., 6.0.50_20020630).
! @item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}-@var{MM}-@var{DD}-cvs
! a @sc{cvs} check out (e.g., 6.0.90_2004-02-30-cvs).
! @item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD} (@var{vendor})
! a vendor specific relese of @value{GDBN}, that while based on
! @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD},
! may contain additional changes
! @end table
! @value{GDBN}'s mainline uses the @var{major} and @var{minor} version
! numbers from the most recent release branch, with a @var{patchlevel}
! of 50. As each new release branch is created, the mainline
! @var{major} and @var{minor} version numbers are accordingly updated.
!
! @value{GDBN}'s release branch uses a similar, but slightly more
! complicated scheme. When the branch is first cut, the mainline's
! @var{patchlevel} is changed to .90. As draft releases are
! drawn from the branch, the @var{patchlevel} is incremented is
! incremented. Once the first release (@var{M}.@var{N}) has been made,
! the version prefix is updated to @var{major}.@var{minor}.0.90. Follow
! on releases have an incremented @var{patchlevel}.
!
! Using 5.1 (previous) and 5.2 (current), the example below illustrates
! a typical sequence:
!
! @smallexample
! <mainline>
! |
! 5.1.50_2002-03-03-cvs
! |
! +--------------------------.
! <branch> <mainline>
! | |
! 5.1.90 (draft #1) 5.2.50_2002-03-03-cvs
! | |
! 5.1.90_2002-03-03-cvs 5.2.50_2002-03-04-cvs
! | |
! 5.1.91 (draft #2) 5.2.50_2002-03-05-cvs
! | |
! 5.1.91_2002-03-05-cvs 5.2.50_2002-03-06-cvs
! | |
! 5.2 (release) 5.2.50_2002-03-06-cvs
! | |
! 5.2.0.90_2002-03-07-cvs 5.2.50_2002-03-07-cvs
! | |
! 5.2.1 (update) 5.2.50_2002-03-08-cvs
! |
! +----------- - -
! <branch>
! |
! 5.2.90 (draft #1)
! @end smallexample
! Since @value{GDBN} does not make minor minor minor releases (e.g.,
! 5.1.0.1) the conflict between that and a patch level draft release
! identifier (e.g., 5.1.0.90) is avoided.
! @section Release Branches
! @cindex Release Branches
! @value{GDBN} draws a release series (5.2, 5.2.1, @dots{}) from a
! single release branch (gdb_5_2-branch). Since minor minor minor
! releases (5.1.0.1) are not made, the need to branch the release branch
! is avoided (it also turns out that the effort required for such a a
! branch and release is significantly greater than the effort needed to
! create a new patchlevel release from the head of the release branch).
! @value{GDBN} uses the following release branch tags:
! @smallexample
! gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branchpoint
! gdb_N_M-branch
! gdb_M_N-YYYY-MM-DD-release
! @end smallexample
!
! @emph{Pragmatics: The branchpoint and release tags need to identify when
! a branch and release are made. The branch tag, denoting the head of the
! branch, does not have this criteria.}
!
! @section Vendor Branches
To avoid version conflicts, vendors are expected to modify the file
@file{gdb/version.in} to include a vendor unique alphabetic identifier
(an official @value{GDBN} release never uses alphabetic characters in
! its version identifer). E.g., @samp{5.2widgit2}, or @samp{5.2 (Widgit
! Inc Patch 2)}.
! @section Experimental Branches
! @cindex branches
+ @subsection Guidelines
! @value{GDBN} permits the creation of branches, cut from the @sc{cvs}
! repository, for experimental development. Branches make it possible
! for developers to share preliminary work, and maintainers to examine
! significant new developments.
! The following are a set of guidelines for creating such branches:
! @table @emph
! @item a branch shall have an owner
! The owner can set further policy for a branch, but may not change the
! ground rules. In particular, they can set a policy for commits (be it
! adding more reviewers or deciding who can commit).
!
! @item all commits shall be posted
! All changes committed to a branch shall also be posted to the
! @email{gdb-patches@@sources.redhat.com, the @value{GDBN} patches}
! mailing list. While commentary on such chages are encouraged, people
! should remember that the changes only apply to a branch.
!
! @item all commits shall be covered by an assignment
! This saves @value{GDBN} from the situation where a branch might become
! contaminated.
!
! @item a branch shall to be focused
! A de-focused branch invariably generates lint (unnecessary and
! irelevant change). Cleanups, where identified, should be pushed into
! the mainline as soon as possible
!
! @item a branch shall track mainline.
! This keeps the level of divergence under control. It also keeps the
! pressure on developers to push cleanups and other stuff into the
! mainline.
!
! @item a branch shall contain the entire @value{GDBN} module
! The @value{GDBN} module @code{gdb} should be specified when creating a
! branch (branches of individual files should be avoided).
!
! @item a branch shall be branded using @file{version.in}
! The file @file{gdb/version.in} shall be modified so that it identifes
! the branch @var{owner} and branch @var{name}, e.g.,
! @samp{5.2.50_20030303_owner_name} or @samp{5.2 (Owner Name)}.
! @end table
! @subsection Tags
!
! To simplify the identification of @value{GDBN} branches, the following
! branch taging convention is strongly recommended:
!
! @table @code
!
! @item @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint
! @itemx @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branch
! The branch point and corresponding branch tag. @var{YYYYMMDD} is the
! date that the branch was created. A branch is created using the
! sequence:
! @smallexample
! cvs rtag @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint gdb
! cvs rtag -b -r @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint \
! @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branch gdb
! @end smallexample
!
! @item @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{yyyymmdd}-mergepoint
! The tagged point, on the mainline, that was used when merging the branch
! on @var{yyyymmdd}. To merge in all changes since the branch was cut,
! use a command sequence like:
! @smallexample
! cvs rtag @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{yyyymmdd}-mergepoint gdb
! cvs update \
! -j@var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint
! -j@var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{yyyymmdd}-mergepoint
@end smallexample
+ @noindent
+ Similar sequences can be used to just merge in changes since the last
+ merge.
! @end table
+ @noindent
+ For further information on @sc{cvs}, see
+ @uref{http://www.gnu.org/software/cvs/, Concurrent Versions System}.
+
+ @node Releasing GDB
+
+ @chapter Releasing @value{GDBN}
+ @cindex making a new release of gdb
@section Branch Commit Policy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline
2004-09-21 20:30 [patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline Andrew Cagney
@ 2004-09-22 0:58 ` Joel Brobecker
2004-09-22 13:38 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-10-05 18:36 ` Andrew Cagney
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2004-09-22 0:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: gdb-patches
Just a small comment:
> ! <mainline>
> ! |
> ! 5.1.50_2002-03-03-cvs
> ! |
> ! +--------------------------.
> ! <branch> <mainline>
> ! | |
> ! 5.1.90 (draft #1) 5.2.50_2002-03-03-cvs
> ! | |
> ! 5.1.90_2002-03-03-cvs 5.2.50_2002-03-04-cvs
> ! | |
> ! 5.1.91 (draft #2) 5.2.50_2002-03-05-cvs
> ! | |
> ! 5.1.91_2002-03-05-cvs 5.2.50_2002-03-06-cvs
> ! | |
> ! 5.2 (release) 5.2.50_2002-03-06-cvs
> ! | |
> ! 5.2.0.90_2002-03-07-cvs 5.2.50_2002-03-07-cvs
> ! | |
> ! 5.2.1 (update) 5.2.50_2002-03-08-cvs
> ! |
> ! +----------- - -
> ! <branch>
> ! |
> ! 5.2.90 (draft #1)
It seems more natural to me to have mainline be a straight line
and then have each branch be cut out of mainline. Something like
this:
<mainline>
|
5.1.50_2002-03-03-cvs
|
+--------------------------.
| <branch>
| |
5.2.50_2002-03-03-cvs 5.1.90 (draft #1)
| |
5.2.50_2002-03-04-cvs 5.1.90_2002-03-03-cvs
| |
5.2.50_2002-03-05-cvs 5.1.91 (draft #2)
| |
5.2.50_2002-03-06-cvs 5.1.91_2002-03-05-cvs
| |
5.2.50_2002-03-06-cvs 5.2 (release)
| |
5.2.50_2002-03-07-cvs 5.2.0.90_2002-03-07-cvs
| |
5.2.50_2002-03-08-cvs 5.2.1 (update)
|
5.2.50_2002-03-09-cvs
|
5.2.50_2002-03-10-cvs
|
5.2.50_2002-03-11-cvs
|
5.2.50_2002-03-12-cvs
|
+--------------------------.
| <branch>
| |
5.3.50_2002-03-13-cvs 5.2.90 (draft #1)
| |
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline
2004-09-22 0:58 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2004-09-22 13:38 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2004-09-22 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb-patches
> Just a small comment:
>
>
>>> ! <mainline>
>>> ! |
>>> ! 5.1.50_2002-03-03-cvs
>>> ! |
>>> ! +--------------------------.
>>> ! <branch> <mainline>
>>> ! | |
>>> ! 5.1.90 (draft #1) 5.2.50_2002-03-03-cvs
>>> ! | |
>>> ! 5.1.90_2002-03-03-cvs 5.2.50_2002-03-04-cvs
>>> ! | |
>>> ! 5.1.91 (draft #2) 5.2.50_2002-03-05-cvs
>>> ! | |
>>> ! 5.1.91_2002-03-05-cvs 5.2.50_2002-03-06-cvs
>>> ! | |
>>> ! 5.2 (release) 5.2.50_2002-03-06-cvs
>>> ! | |
>>> ! 5.2.0.90_2002-03-07-cvs 5.2.50_2002-03-07-cvs
>>> ! | |
>>> ! 5.2.1 (update) 5.2.50_2002-03-08-cvs
>>> ! |
>>> ! +----------- - -
>>> ! <branch>
>>> ! |
>>> ! 5.2.90 (draft #1)
>
>
> It seems more natural to me to have mainline be a straight line
> and then have each branch be cut out of mainline. Something like
> this:
The intent is to make the release heritage clear, hence 5.1.50, 5.1.90,
5.1.91, 5.2, 5.2.1 are all in a straight line. That clarity is what the
i18n group were asking for (but perhaphs not diagramatically :-).
Either way, I'll:
- strip out some of the mainline dates (no value add)
- add an <end-of-life> marker to the branch
- change <branch> to <gdb_5_2-branch> et.al.
Andrew
> <mainline>
> |
> 5.1.50_2002-03-03-cvs
> |
> +--------------------------.
> | <branch>
> | |
> 5.2.50_2002-03-03-cvs 5.1.90 (draft #1)
> | |
> 5.2.50_2002-03-04-cvs 5.1.90_2002-03-03-cvs
> | |
> 5.2.50_2002-03-05-cvs 5.1.91 (draft #2)
> | |
> 5.2.50_2002-03-06-cvs 5.1.91_2002-03-05-cvs
> | |
> 5.2.50_2002-03-06-cvs 5.2 (release)
> | |
> 5.2.50_2002-03-07-cvs 5.2.0.90_2002-03-07-cvs
> | |
> 5.2.50_2002-03-08-cvs 5.2.1 (update)
> |
> 5.2.50_2002-03-09-cvs
> |
> 5.2.50_2002-03-10-cvs
> |
> 5.2.50_2002-03-11-cvs
> |
> 5.2.50_2002-03-12-cvs
> |
> +--------------------------.
> | <branch>
> | |
> 5.3.50_2002-03-13-cvs 5.2.90 (draft #1)
> | |
>
>
> -- Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline
2004-09-21 20:30 [patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline Andrew Cagney
2004-09-22 0:58 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2004-10-05 18:36 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-10-06 11:08 ` Eli Zaretskii
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2004-10-05 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: gdb-patches
> Index: doc/ChangeLog
> 2004-09-21 Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
>
> * gdbint.texinfo (Versions and Branches): New chapter.
> (Releasing GDB): Delete "Versions and Branches" section.
> (Top): Add "Versions and Branches".
Ping (but Joel made some comments).
> Index: ChangeLog
> 2004-09-21 Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
>
> * version.in: Bump to version 6.3.50.
>
I've checked this in (but as 6.2.50 :-).
Andrew
> Index: doc/gdbint.texinfo
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo,v
> retrieving revision 1.224
> diff -p -c -r1.224 gdbint.texinfo
> *** doc/gdbint.texinfo 12 Sep 2004 15:20:49 -0000 1.224
> --- doc/gdbint.texinfo 21 Sep 2004 20:20:12 -0000
> *************** as the mechanisms that adapt @value{GDBN
> *** 84,89 ****
> --- 84,90 ----
> * Support Libraries::
> * Coding::
> * Porting GDB::
> + * Versions and Branches::
> * Releasing GDB::
> * Testsuite::
> * Hints::
> *************** target-dependent @file{.h} and @file{.c}
> *** 5368,5476 ****
> configuration.
> @end itemize
>
> ! @node Releasing GDB
>
> ! @chapter Releasing @value{GDBN}
> ! @cindex making a new release of gdb
>
> ! @section Versions and Branches
>
> ! @subsection Version Identifiers
>
> ! @value{GDBN}'s version is determined by the file @file{gdb/version.in}.
>
> ! @value{GDBN}'s mainline uses ISO dates to differentiate between
> ! versions. The CVS repository uses @var{YYYY}-@var{MM}-@var{DD}-cvs
> ! while the corresponding snapshot uses @var{YYYYMMDD}.
> !
> ! @value{GDBN}'s release branch uses a slightly more complicated scheme.
> ! When the branch is first cut, the mainline version identifier is
> ! prefixed with the @var{major}.@var{minor} from of the previous release
> ! series but with .90 appended. As draft releases are drawn from the
> ! branch, the minor minor number (.90) is incremented. Once the first
> ! release (@var{M}.@var{N}) has been made, the version prefix is updated
> ! to @var{M}.@var{N}.0.90 (dot zero, dot ninety). Follow on releases have
> ! an incremented minor minor version number (.0).
>
> ! Using 5.1 (previous) and 5.2 (current), the example below illustrates a
> ! typical sequence of version identifiers:
>
> ! @table @asis
> ! @item 5.1.1
> ! final release from previous branch
> ! @item 2002-03-03-cvs
> ! main-line the day the branch is cut
> ! @item 5.1.90-2002-03-03-cvs
> ! corresponding branch version
> ! @item 5.1.91
> ! first draft release candidate
> ! @item 5.1.91-2002-03-17-cvs
> ! updated branch version
> ! @item 5.1.92
> ! second draft release candidate
> ! @item 5.1.92-2002-03-31-cvs
> ! updated branch version
> ! @item 5.1.93
> ! final release candidate (see below)
> ! @item 5.2
> ! official release
> ! @item 5.2.0.90-2002-04-07-cvs
> ! updated CVS branch version
> ! @item 5.2.1
> ! second official release
> ! @end table
>
> ! Notes:
>
> ! @itemize @bullet
> ! @item
> ! Minor minor minor draft release candidates such as 5.2.0.91 have been
> ! omitted from the example. Such release candidates are, typically, never
> ! made.
> ! @item
> ! For 5.1.93 the bziped tar ball @file{gdb-5.1.93.tar.bz2} is just the
> ! official @file{gdb-5.2.tar} renamed and compressed.
> ! @end itemize
>
> To avoid version conflicts, vendors are expected to modify the file
> @file{gdb/version.in} to include a vendor unique alphabetic identifier
> (an official @value{GDBN} release never uses alphabetic characters in
> ! its version identifer).
>
> ! Since @value{GDBN} does not make minor minor minor releases (e.g.,
> ! 5.1.0.1) the conflict between that and a minor minor draft release
> ! identifier (e.g., 5.1.0.90) is avoided.
>
>
> ! @subsection Branches
>
> ! @value{GDBN} draws a release series (5.2, 5.2.1, @dots{}) from a single
> ! release branch (gdb_5_2-branch). Since minor minor minor releases
> ! (5.1.0.1) are not made, the need to branch the release branch is avoided
> ! (it also turns out that the effort required for such a a branch and
> ! release is significantly greater than the effort needed to create a new
> ! release from the head of the release branch).
>
> ! Releases 5.0 and 5.1 used branch and release tags of the form:
>
> ! @smallexample
> ! gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branchpoint
> ! gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branch
> ! gdb_M_N-YYYY-MM-DD-release
> ! @end smallexample
>
> ! Release 5.2 is trialing the branch and release tags:
>
> ! @smallexample
> ! gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branchpoint
> ! gdb_N_M-branch
> ! gdb_M_N-YYYY-MM-DD-release
> @end smallexample
>
> ! @emph{Pragmatics: The branchpoint and release tags need to identify when
> ! a branch and release are made. The branch tag, denoting the head of the
> ! branch, does not have this criteria.}
>
>
> @section Branch Commit Policy
>
> --- 5369,5566 ----
> configuration.
> @end itemize
>
> ! @node Versions and Branches
> ! @chapter Versions and Branches
>
> ! @section Versions
>
> ! @value{GDBN}'s version is determined by the file
> ! @file{gdb/version.in} and takes one of the following forms:
>
> ! @table @asis
> ! @item @var{major}.@var{minor}
> ! @itemx @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}
> ! an official release (e.g., 6.0 or 6.0.1).
> ! @item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD}
> ! a snapshot (e.g., 6.0.50_20020630).
> ! @item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}-@var{MM}-@var{DD}-cvs
> ! a @sc{cvs} check out (e.g., 6.0.90_2004-02-30-cvs).
> ! @item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD} (@var{vendor})
> ! a vendor specific relese of @value{GDBN}, that while based on
> ! @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD},
> ! may contain additional changes
> ! @end table
>
> ! @value{GDBN}'s mainline uses the @var{major} and @var{minor} version
> ! numbers from the most recent release branch, with a @var{patchlevel}
> ! of 50. As each new release branch is created, the mainline
> ! @var{major} and @var{minor} version numbers are accordingly updated.
> !
> ! @value{GDBN}'s release branch uses a similar, but slightly more
> ! complicated scheme. When the branch is first cut, the mainline's
> ! @var{patchlevel} is changed to .90. As draft releases are
> ! drawn from the branch, the @var{patchlevel} is incremented is
> ! incremented. Once the first release (@var{M}.@var{N}) has been made,
> ! the version prefix is updated to @var{major}.@var{minor}.0.90. Follow
> ! on releases have an incremented @var{patchlevel}.
> !
> ! Using 5.1 (previous) and 5.2 (current), the example below illustrates
> ! a typical sequence:
> !
> ! @smallexample
> ! <mainline>
> ! |
> ! 5.1.50_2002-03-03-cvs
> ! |
> ! +--------------------------.
> ! <branch> <mainline>
> ! | |
> ! 5.1.90 (draft #1) 5.2.50_2002-03-03-cvs
> ! | |
> ! 5.1.90_2002-03-03-cvs 5.2.50_2002-03-04-cvs
> ! | |
> ! 5.1.91 (draft #2) 5.2.50_2002-03-05-cvs
> ! | |
> ! 5.1.91_2002-03-05-cvs 5.2.50_2002-03-06-cvs
> ! | |
> ! 5.2 (release) 5.2.50_2002-03-06-cvs
> ! | |
> ! 5.2.0.90_2002-03-07-cvs 5.2.50_2002-03-07-cvs
> ! | |
> ! 5.2.1 (update) 5.2.50_2002-03-08-cvs
> ! |
> ! +----------- - -
> ! <branch>
> ! |
> ! 5.2.90 (draft #1)
> ! @end smallexample
>
> ! Since @value{GDBN} does not make minor minor minor releases (e.g.,
> ! 5.1.0.1) the conflict between that and a patch level draft release
> ! identifier (e.g., 5.1.0.90) is avoided.
>
> ! @section Release Branches
> ! @cindex Release Branches
>
> ! @value{GDBN} draws a release series (5.2, 5.2.1, @dots{}) from a
> ! single release branch (gdb_5_2-branch). Since minor minor minor
> ! releases (5.1.0.1) are not made, the need to branch the release branch
> ! is avoided (it also turns out that the effort required for such a a
> ! branch and release is significantly greater than the effort needed to
> ! create a new patchlevel release from the head of the release branch).
>
> ! @value{GDBN} uses the following release branch tags:
>
> ! @smallexample
> ! gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branchpoint
> ! gdb_N_M-branch
> ! gdb_M_N-YYYY-MM-DD-release
> ! @end smallexample
> !
> ! @emph{Pragmatics: The branchpoint and release tags need to identify when
> ! a branch and release are made. The branch tag, denoting the head of the
> ! branch, does not have this criteria.}
> !
> ! @section Vendor Branches
>
> To avoid version conflicts, vendors are expected to modify the file
> @file{gdb/version.in} to include a vendor unique alphabetic identifier
> (an official @value{GDBN} release never uses alphabetic characters in
> ! its version identifer). E.g., @samp{5.2widgit2}, or @samp{5.2 (Widgit
> ! Inc Patch 2)}.
>
> ! @section Experimental Branches
> ! @cindex branches
>
> + @subsection Guidelines
>
> ! @value{GDBN} permits the creation of branches, cut from the @sc{cvs}
> ! repository, for experimental development. Branches make it possible
> ! for developers to share preliminary work, and maintainers to examine
> ! significant new developments.
>
> ! The following are a set of guidelines for creating such branches:
>
> ! @table @emph
>
> ! @item a branch shall have an owner
> ! The owner can set further policy for a branch, but may not change the
> ! ground rules. In particular, they can set a policy for commits (be it
> ! adding more reviewers or deciding who can commit).
> !
> ! @item all commits shall be posted
> ! All changes committed to a branch shall also be posted to the
> ! @email{gdb-patches@@sources.redhat.com, the @value{GDBN} patches}
> ! mailing list. While commentary on such chages are encouraged, people
> ! should remember that the changes only apply to a branch.
> !
> ! @item all commits shall be covered by an assignment
> ! This saves @value{GDBN} from the situation where a branch might become
> ! contaminated.
> !
> ! @item a branch shall to be focused
> ! A de-focused branch invariably generates lint (unnecessary and
> ! irelevant change). Cleanups, where identified, should be pushed into
> ! the mainline as soon as possible
> !
> ! @item a branch shall track mainline.
> ! This keeps the level of divergence under control. It also keeps the
> ! pressure on developers to push cleanups and other stuff into the
> ! mainline.
> !
> ! @item a branch shall contain the entire @value{GDBN} module
> ! The @value{GDBN} module @code{gdb} should be specified when creating a
> ! branch (branches of individual files should be avoided).
> !
> ! @item a branch shall be branded using @file{version.in}
> ! The file @file{gdb/version.in} shall be modified so that it identifes
> ! the branch @var{owner} and branch @var{name}, e.g.,
> ! @samp{5.2.50_20030303_owner_name} or @samp{5.2 (Owner Name)}.
>
> ! @end table
>
> ! @subsection Tags
> !
> ! To simplify the identification of @value{GDBN} branches, the following
> ! branch taging convention is strongly recommended:
> !
> ! @table @code
> !
> ! @item @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint
> ! @itemx @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branch
> ! The branch point and corresponding branch tag. @var{YYYYMMDD} is the
> ! date that the branch was created. A branch is created using the
> ! sequence:
> ! @smallexample
> ! cvs rtag @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint gdb
> ! cvs rtag -b -r @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint \
> ! @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branch gdb
> ! @end smallexample
> !
> ! @item @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{yyyymmdd}-mergepoint
> ! The tagged point, on the mainline, that was used when merging the branch
> ! on @var{yyyymmdd}. To merge in all changes since the branch was cut,
> ! use a command sequence like:
> ! @smallexample
> ! cvs rtag @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{yyyymmdd}-mergepoint gdb
> ! cvs update \
> ! -j@var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint
> ! -j@var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{yyyymmdd}-mergepoint
> @end smallexample
> + @noindent
> + Similar sequences can be used to just merge in changes since the last
> + merge.
>
> ! @end table
>
> + @noindent
> + For further information on @sc{cvs}, see
> + @uref{http://www.gnu.org/software/cvs/, Concurrent Versions System}.
> +
> + @node Releasing GDB
> +
> + @chapter Releasing @value{GDBN}
> + @cindex making a new release of gdb
>
> @section Branch Commit Policy
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline
2004-10-05 18:36 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2004-10-06 11:08 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-10-06 22:20 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2004-10-06 11:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: gdb-patches
> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:35:34 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> > Index: doc/ChangeLog
> > 2004-09-21 Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> >
> > * gdbint.texinfo (Versions and Branches): New chapter.
> > (Releasing GDB): Delete "Versions and Branches" section.
> > (Top): Add "Versions and Branches".
>
> Ping (but Joel made some comments).
Sorry, I missed the original message. My comments to the doco are
below.
I do agree with Joel: his suggestion shows better the development
mainline, and does not contradict your desire to see the lineage as a
straight line, as 5.2 pretests and 5.2.1 are still on the same line.
> ! @item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD}
> ! a snapshot (e.g., 6.0.50_20020630).
> ! @item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}-@var{MM}-@var{DD}-cvs
> ! a @sc{cvs} check out (e.g., 6.0.90_2004-02-30-cvs).
> ! @item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD} (@var{vendor})
Do these longish @item's pass TeX without triggering overfull hbox
warnings? If such messages do pop up, perhaps make the strings inside
@var shorter, e.g. "pl" instead of "patchlevel".
> ! a vendor specific relese of @value{GDBN}, that while based on
^^^^^^
A typo (please run through a speller before committing).
> ! @var{patchlevel} is changed to .90. As draft releases are
> ! drawn from the branch, the @var{patchlevel} is incremented is
> ! incremented.
There are 2 "is incremented" in the last sentence.
> ! Once the first release (@var{M}.@var{N}) has been made,
> ! the version prefix is updated to @var{major}.@var{minor}.0.90.
Here you introduce M and N which somehow relate to "major" and
"minor", but you don't explain the relationship. Can't we continue to
use the same symbols throughout?
> ! Using 5.1 (previous) and 5.2 (current), the example below illustrates
> ! a typical sequence:
Again, to make the relation to symbols in @var, it is better to say
something like
If the previous @value{GDBN} version is 5.1 and the current version
is 5.2, then, substituting 5 for @var{major} and 1 or 2 for
@var{minor}, here's an illustration of a typical sequence:
> ! Since @value{GDBN} does not make minor minor minor releases
I'd suggest "..does not make @var{minor1}.@var{minor2}.@var{minor3}
releases" here (assuming I understood right what you wanted to say).
> ! single release branch (gdb_5_2-branch). Since minor minor minor
> ! releases (5.1.0.1) are not made, the need to branch the release branch
Same here.
> ! @value{GDBN} uses the following release branch tags:
>
> ! @smallexample
> ! gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branchpoint
> ! gdb_N_M-branch
> ! gdb_M_N-YYYY-MM-DD-release
> ! @end smallexample
There should be @var's inside @smallexample as well, again for
consistency and less confusion potential.
> ! @emph{Pragmatics: The branchpoint and release tags need to identify when
> ! a branch and release are made.
I'm guessing that ``when a branch and release are made'' refers to the
YYYY-MM-DD thing. If so, please add some reference to @var{YYYY}
etc. in this text, so that the reader knows what you mean by "when".
> ! The branch tag, denoting the head of the
> ! branch, does not have this criteria.}
It seems like "does not have this criteria" is not the best way of
putting this. Would "does not need this" express correctly what you
wanted to say?
> ! @section Vendor Branches
Why no @cindex entry here?
> To avoid version conflicts, vendors are expected to modify the file
> @file{gdb/version.in} to include a vendor unique alphabetic identifier
> (an official @value{GDBN} release never uses alphabetic characters in
> ! its version identifer). E.g., @samp{5.2widgit2}, or @samp{5.2 (Widgit
> ! Inc Patch 2)}.
Given the discussions about finding out MI versions, do we perhaps
want to tell vendors not to embed whitespace in their identifiers?
> ! @section Experimental Branches
> ! @cindex branches
This @cindex entry sounds too general to put here. How about
@cindex experimental branches
?
> ! All changes committed to a branch shall also be posted to the
> ! @email{gdb-patches@@sources.redhat.com, the @value{GDBN} patches}
> ! mailing list.
This usage of @email is not a good idea (please look at what makeinfo
and TeX produce from it, and you will see what I mean). I suggest
something like this instead:
All changes committed to a branch shall also be posted to
@email{gdb-patches@@sources.redhat.com, the @value{GDBN} patches
mailing list}.
> ! @item all commits shall be covered by an assignment
Don't you need "should be covered"?
> ! @item a branch shall to be focused
Same here, and also I think "to" should be deleted.
In addition, I personally don't understand what it means for a branch
to be ``focused''. Can you explain?
> ! @item a branch shall contain the entire @value{GDBN} module
> ! The @value{GDBN} module @code{gdb} should be specified when creating a
> ! branch (branches of individual files should be avoided).
Would it help to have an example of an actual CVS command here that
creates the branch? Or at least a reference to the commands you show
later in the section?
> ! The file @file{gdb/version.in} shall be modified so that it identifes
^^^^^^^^^
A typo.
> ! To simplify the identification of @value{GDBN} branches, the following
> ! branch taging convention is strongly recommended:
^^^^^^
"tagging"
> ! @smallexample
> ! cvs rtag @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint gdb
> ! cvs rtag -b -r @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint \
> ! @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branch gdb
> ! @end smallexample
Please make sure this and the other examples don't trigger overfull
hbox messages from TeX.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline
2004-10-06 11:08 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2004-10-06 22:20 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-10-08 9:47 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2004-10-06 22:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: gdb-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5668 bytes --]
I think I've covered this, I've made notes where I think it's helpful:
>
> Sorry, I missed the original message. My comments to the doco are
> below.
>
> I do agree with Joel: his suggestion shows better the development
> mainline, and does not contradict your desire to see the lineage as a
> straight line, as 5.2 pretests and 5.2.1 are still on the same line.
Changed, also changed to 6.[12] so that it looks more current, also uses
gdb_6_2-branch.
>>> ! @item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD}
>>> ! a snapshot (e.g., 6.0.50_20020630).
>>> ! @item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}-@var{MM}-@var{DD}-cvs
>>> ! a @sc{cvs} check out (e.g., 6.0.90_2004-02-30-cvs).
>>> ! @item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD} (@var{vendor})
>
>
> Do these longish @item's pass TeX without triggering overfull hbox
> warnings? If such messages do pop up, perhaps make the strings inside
> @var shorter, e.g. "pl" instead of "patchlevel".
It's the only chapter that does! I did add one @* though.
>>> ! a vendor specific relese of @value{GDBN}, that while based on
>>> ! Once the first release (@var{M}.@var{N}) has been made,
>>> ! the version prefix is updated to @var{major}.@var{minor}.0.90.
>
>
> Here you introduce M and N which somehow relate to "major" and
> "minor", but you don't explain the relationship. Can't we continue to
> use the same symbols throughout?
The original original patch used M/N everywere but then I changed to to
major/minor - missed that in the switch. Fixed.
> If the previous @value{GDBN} version is 5.1 and the current version
> is 5.2, then, substituting 5 for @var{major} and 1 or 2 for
> @var{minor}, here's an illustration of a typical sequence:
stolen.
>>> ! Since @value{GDBN} does not make minor minor minor releases
>
>
> I'd suggest "..does not make @var{minor1}.@var{minor2}.@var{minor3}
> releases" here (assuming I understood right what you wanted to say).
>
>
>>> ! single release branch (gdb_5_2-branch). Since minor minor minor
>>> ! releases (5.1.0.1) are not made, the need to branch the release branch
>
>
> Same here.
I deleted these. With major.minor.patchlevel, the phrase and intent no
longer applies -> it's clear that there are no further levels.
>>> ! @value{GDBN} uses the following release branch tags:
>>>
>>> ! @smallexample
>>> ! gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branchpoint
>>> ! gdb_N_M-branch
>>> ! gdb_M_N-YYYY-MM-DD-release
>>> ! @end smallexample
>
>
> There should be @var's inside @smallexample as well, again for
> consistency and less confusion potential.
The M/N were also fixed.
>>> ! @emph{Pragmatics: The branchpoint and release tags need to identify when
>>> ! a branch and release are made.
>
>
> I'm guessing that ``when a branch and release are made'' refers to the
> YYYY-MM-DD thing. If so, please add some reference to @var{YYYY}
> etc. in this text, so that the reader knows what you mean by "when".
Done.
>>> ! The branch tag, denoting the head of the
>>> ! branch, does not have this criteria.}
>
>
> It seems like "does not have this criteria" is not the best way of
> putting this. Would "does not need this" express correctly what you
> wanted to say?
Rewoded.
>>> ! @section Vendor Branches
>
>
> Why no @cindex entry here?
Added.
>
>>> To avoid version conflicts, vendors are expected to modify the file
>>> @file{gdb/version.in} to include a vendor unique alphabetic identifier
>>> (an official @value{GDBN} release never uses alphabetic characters in
>>> ! its version identifer). E.g., @samp{5.2widgit2}, or @samp{5.2 (Widgit
>>> ! Inc Patch 2)}.
>
>
> Given the discussions about finding out MI versions, do we perhaps
> want to tell vendors not to embed whitespace in their identifiers?
I don't see it as a problem.
>>> ! @section Experimental Branches
>>> ! @cindex branches
>
>
> This @cindex entry sounds too general to put here. How about
>
> @cindex experimental branches
>
> ?
changed
>>> ! All changes committed to a branch shall also be posted to the
>>> ! @email{gdb-patches@@sources.redhat.com, the @value{GDBN} patches}
>>> ! mailing list.
>
>
> This usage of @email is not a good idea (please look at what makeinfo
> and TeX produce from it, and you will see what I mean). I suggest
> something like this instead:
>
> All changes committed to a branch shall also be posted to
> @email{gdb-patches@@sources.redhat.com, the @value{GDBN} patches
> mailing list}.
changed
>>> ! @item all commits shall be covered by an assignment
>
>
> Don't you need "should be covered"?
Shall. It's a strict requirement.
>>> ! @item a branch shall to be focused
>
>
> Same here, and also I think "to" should be deleted.
>
> In addition, I personally don't understand what it means for a branch
> to be ``focused''. Can you explain?
I reworded it.
>>> ! @item a branch shall contain the entire @value{GDBN} module
>>> ! The @value{GDBN} module @code{gdb} should be specified when creating a
>>> ! branch (branches of individual files should be avoided).
>
>
> Would it help to have an example of an actual CVS command here that
> creates the branch? Or at least a reference to the commands you show
> later in the section?
I added an anchor.
>
>>> ! @smallexample
>>> ! cvs rtag @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint gdb
>>> ! cvs rtag -b -r @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint \
>>> ! @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branch gdb
>>> ! @end smallexample
>
>
> Please make sure this and the other examples don't trigger overfull
> hbox messages from TeX.
clean.
Andrew
[-- Attachment #2: diffs --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 11336 bytes --]
2004-10-06 Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
* gdbint.texinfo (Versions and Branches): New chapter.
(Releasing GDB): Delete "Versions and Branches" section.
(Top): Add "Versions and Branches".
Index: gdbint.texinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.224
diff -p -u -r1.224 gdbint.texinfo
--- gdbint.texinfo 12 Sep 2004 15:20:49 -0000 1.224
+++ gdbint.texinfo 6 Oct 2004 22:19:28 -0000
@@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ as the mechanisms that adapt @value{GDBN
* Support Libraries::
* Coding::
* Porting GDB::
+* Versions and Branches::
* Releasing GDB::
* Testsuite::
* Hints::
@@ -5368,109 +5369,198 @@ target-dependent @file{.h} and @file{.c}
configuration.
@end itemize
-@node Releasing GDB
-
-@chapter Releasing @value{GDBN}
-@cindex making a new release of gdb
+@node Versions and Branches
+@chapter Versions and Branches
-@section Versions and Branches
+@section Versions
-@subsection Version Identifiers
-
-@value{GDBN}'s version is determined by the file @file{gdb/version.in}.
-
-@value{GDBN}'s mainline uses ISO dates to differentiate between
-versions. The CVS repository uses @var{YYYY}-@var{MM}-@var{DD}-cvs
-while the corresponding snapshot uses @var{YYYYMMDD}.
-
-@value{GDBN}'s release branch uses a slightly more complicated scheme.
-When the branch is first cut, the mainline version identifier is
-prefixed with the @var{major}.@var{minor} from of the previous release
-series but with .90 appended. As draft releases are drawn from the
-branch, the minor minor number (.90) is incremented. Once the first
-release (@var{M}.@var{N}) has been made, the version prefix is updated
-to @var{M}.@var{N}.0.90 (dot zero, dot ninety). Follow on releases have
-an incremented minor minor version number (.0).
-
-Using 5.1 (previous) and 5.2 (current), the example below illustrates a
-typical sequence of version identifiers:
+@value{GDBN}'s version is determined by the file
+@file{gdb/version.in} and takes one of the following forms:
@table @asis
-@item 5.1.1
-final release from previous branch
-@item 2002-03-03-cvs
-main-line the day the branch is cut
-@item 5.1.90-2002-03-03-cvs
-corresponding branch version
-@item 5.1.91
-first draft release candidate
-@item 5.1.91-2002-03-17-cvs
-updated branch version
-@item 5.1.92
-second draft release candidate
-@item 5.1.92-2002-03-31-cvs
-updated branch version
-@item 5.1.93
-final release candidate (see below)
-@item 5.2
-official release
-@item 5.2.0.90-2002-04-07-cvs
-updated CVS branch version
-@item 5.2.1
-second official release
+@item @var{major}.@var{minor}
+@itemx @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}
+an official release (e.g., 6.0 or 6.0.1)
+@item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD}
+a snapshot (e.g., 6.0.50_20020630)
+@item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}-@var{MM}-@var{DD}-cvs
+a @sc{cvs} check out (e.g., 6.0.90_2004-02-30-cvs)
+@item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD} (@var{vendor})
+a vendor specific release of @value{GDBN}, that while based on@*
+@var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD},
+may contain additional changes
@end table
-Notes:
+@value{GDBN}'s mainline uses the @var{major} and @var{minor} version
+numbers from the most recent release branch, with a @var{patchlevel}
+of 50. As each new release branch is created, the mainline
+@var{major} and @var{minor} version numbers are accordingly updated.
+
+@value{GDBN}'s release branch uses a similar, but slightly more
+complicated scheme. When the branch is first cut, the mainline's
+@var{patchlevel} is changed to .90. As draft releases are drawn from
+the branch, the @var{patchlevel} is incremented. Once the first
+release (@var{major}.@var{minor}) has been made, the version prefix is
+updated to @var{major}.@var{minor}.0.90. Follow on releases have an
+incremented @var{patchlevel}.
+
+If the previous @value{GDBN} version is 6.1 and the current version is
+6.2, then, substituting 6 for @var{major} and 1 or 2 for @var{minor},
+here's an illustration of a typical sequence:
+
+@smallexample
+ <HEAD>
+ |
+6.1.50_2002-03-02-cvs
+ |
+ +---------------------------.
+ | <gdb_6_2-branch>
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-03-cvs 6.1.90 (draft #1)
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-04-cvs 6.1.90_2002-03-04-cvs
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-05-cvs 6.1.91 (draft #2)
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-06-cvs 6.1.91_2002-03-06-cvs
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-07-cvs 6.2 (release)
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-08-cvs 6.2.0.90_2002-03-08-cvs
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-09-cvs 6.2.1 (update)
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-10-cvs <branch closed>
+ |
+6.2.50_2002-03-11-cvs
+ |
+ +---------------------------.
+ | <gdb_6_3-branch>
+ | |
+6.3.50_2002-03-12-cvs 6.2.90 (draft #1)
+ | |
+@end smallexample
+
+@section Release Branches
+@cindex Release Branches
+
+@value{GDBN} draws a release series (6.2, 6.2.1, @dots{}) from a
+single release branch, and identifies that branch using the @sc{cvs}
+branch tags:
+
+@smallexample
+gdb_@var{major}_@var{minor}-@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD}-branchpoint
+gdb_@var{major}_@var{minor}-branch
+gdb_@var{major}_@var{minor}-@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD}-release
+@end smallexample
+
+@emph{Pragmatics: To help identify the date at which a branch or
+release is made, both the branchpoint and release tags include the
+date that they are cut (@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD}) in the tag. The
+branch tag, denoting the head of the branch, does not need this.}
-@itemize @bullet
-@item
-Minor minor minor draft release candidates such as 5.2.0.91 have been
-omitted from the example. Such release candidates are, typically, never
-made.
-@item
-For 5.1.93 the bziped tar ball @file{gdb-5.1.93.tar.bz2} is just the
-official @file{gdb-5.2.tar} renamed and compressed.
-@end itemize
+@section Vendor Branches
+@cindex vendor branches
To avoid version conflicts, vendors are expected to modify the file
@file{gdb/version.in} to include a vendor unique alphabetic identifier
(an official @value{GDBN} release never uses alphabetic characters in
-its version identifer).
+its version identifer). E.g., @samp{6.2widgit2}, or @samp{6.2 (Widgit
+Inc Patch 2)}.
-Since @value{GDBN} does not make minor minor minor releases (e.g.,
-5.1.0.1) the conflict between that and a minor minor draft release
-identifier (e.g., 5.1.0.90) is avoided.
+@section Experimental Branches
+@cindex experimental branches
+@subsection Guidelines
-@subsection Branches
+@value{GDBN} permits the creation of branches, cut from the @sc{cvs}
+repository, for experimental development. Branches make it possible
+for developers to share preliminary work, and maintainers to examine
+significant new developments.
-@value{GDBN} draws a release series (5.2, 5.2.1, @dots{}) from a single
-release branch (gdb_5_2-branch). Since minor minor minor releases
-(5.1.0.1) are not made, the need to branch the release branch is avoided
-(it also turns out that the effort required for such a a branch and
-release is significantly greater than the effort needed to create a new
-release from the head of the release branch).
+The following are a set of guidelines for creating such branches:
-Releases 5.0 and 5.1 used branch and release tags of the form:
+@table @emph
-@smallexample
-gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branchpoint
-gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branch
-gdb_M_N-YYYY-MM-DD-release
-@end smallexample
+@item a branch shall have an owner
+The owner can set further policy for a branch, but may not change the
+ground rules. In particular, they can set a policy for commits (be it
+adding more reviewers or deciding who can commit).
+
+@item all commits shall be posted
+All changes committed to a branch shall also be posted to
+@email{gdb-patches@@sources.redhat.com, the @value{GDBN} patches
+mailing list}. While commentary on such changes are encouraged, people
+should remember that the changes only apply to a branch.
+
+@item all commits shall be covered by an assignment
+This ensures that all changes belong to the Free Software Foundation,
+and avoids the possibility that the branch may become contaminated.
+
+@item a branch shall be focused
+A focused branch has a single objective or goal, and does not contain
+unnecessary or irrelevant changes. Cleanups, where identified, being
+be pushed into the mainline as soon as possible.
+
+@item a branch shall track mainline.
+This keeps the level of divergence under control. It also keeps the
+pressure on developers to push cleanups and other stuff into the
+mainline.
+
+@item a branch shall contain the entire @value{GDBN} module
+The @value{GDBN} module @code{gdb} should be specified when creating a
+branch (branches of individual files should be avoided). @xref{Tags}.
+
+@item a branch shall be branded using @file{version.in}
+The file @file{gdb/version.in} shall be modified so that it identifies
+the branch @var{owner} and branch @var{name}, e.g.,
+@samp{6.2.50_20030303_owner_name} or @samp{6.2 (Owner Name)}.
-Release 5.2 is trialing the branch and release tags:
+@end table
-@smallexample
-gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branchpoint
-gdb_N_M-branch
-gdb_M_N-YYYY-MM-DD-release
+@subsection Tags
+@anchor{Tags}
+
+To simplify the identification of @value{GDBN} branches, the following
+branch tagging convention is strongly recommended:
+
+@table @code
+
+@item @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint
+@itemx @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branch
+The branch point and corresponding branch tag. @var{YYYYMMDD} is the
+date that the branch was created. A branch is created using the
+sequence: @anchor{experimental branch tags}
+@smallexample
+cvs rtag @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint gdb
+cvs rtag -b -r @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint \
+ @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branch gdb
+@end smallexample
+
+@item @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{yyyymmdd}-mergepoint
+The tagged point, on the mainline, that was used when merging the branch
+on @var{yyyymmdd}. To merge in all changes since the branch was cut,
+use a command sequence like:
+@smallexample
+cvs rtag @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{yyyymmdd}-mergepoint gdb
+cvs update \
+ -j@var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint
+ -j@var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{yyyymmdd}-mergepoint
@end smallexample
+@noindent
+Similar sequences can be used to just merge in changes since the last
+merge.
-@emph{Pragmatics: The branchpoint and release tags need to identify when
-a branch and release are made. The branch tag, denoting the head of the
-branch, does not have this criteria.}
+@end table
+@noindent
+For further information on @sc{cvs}, see
+@uref{http://www.gnu.org/software/cvs/, Concurrent Versions System}.
+
+@node Releasing GDB
+
+@chapter Releasing @value{GDBN}
+@cindex making a new release of gdb
@section Branch Commit Policy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline
2004-10-06 22:20 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2004-10-08 9:47 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-10-11 6:30 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2004-10-08 9:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: gdb-patches
> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:19:41 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> > Given the discussions about finding out MI versions, do we perhaps
> > want to tell vendors not to embed whitespace in their identifiers?
>
> I don't see it as a problem.
In my experience, whitespace make the automated parsing harder. But
if no one else sees this as a problem, I won't object.
> >>> ! @item all commits shall be covered by an assignment
> > Don't you need "should be covered"?
>
> Shall. It's a strict requirement.
Well, the text says ``guidelines'', not ``requirements''. Also, do we
really expect the reader of those to be fluent with the conventions of
MIL-STD-489 and its ilk? If not, ``shall'' sounds bad English in this
context, IMHO.
Otherwise, fine with me, thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline
2004-10-08 9:47 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2004-10-11 6:30 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-10-11 20:21 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2004-10-11 6:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: gdb-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 751 bytes --]
>>>>>> >>> ! @item all commits shall be covered by an assignment
>>>
>>>> > Don't you need "should be covered"?
>>
>>>
>>> Shall. It's a strict requirement.
>
>
> Well, the text says ``guidelines'', not ``requirements''. Also, do we
> really expect the reader of those to be fluent with the conventions of
> MIL-STD-489 and its ilk? If not, ``shall'' sounds bad English in this
> context, IMHO.
As a "guideline" it's pretty strong - it met with clear support when
proposed so I don't think anyone would not follow it. And in the case
of code, it really does need to be covered by an assignment (except when
trivial) - that just explicitly stating the rule that applies to the
mainline.
Anyway, I've removed the shall.
Look ok?
Andrew
[-- Attachment #2: diffs --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 11320 bytes --]
2004-10-06 Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
* gdbint.texinfo (Versions and Branches): New chapter.
(Releasing GDB): Delete "Versions and Branches" section.
(Top): Add "Versions and Branches".
Index: doc/gdbint.texinfo
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/doc/gdbint.texinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.224
diff -p -u -r1.224 gdbint.texinfo
--- doc/gdbint.texinfo 12 Sep 2004 15:20:49 -0000 1.224
+++ doc/gdbint.texinfo 11 Oct 2004 06:14:39 -0000
@@ -84,6 +84,7 @@ as the mechanisms that adapt @value{GDBN
* Support Libraries::
* Coding::
* Porting GDB::
+* Versions and Branches::
* Releasing GDB::
* Testsuite::
* Hints::
@@ -5368,109 +5369,198 @@ target-dependent @file{.h} and @file{.c}
configuration.
@end itemize
-@node Releasing GDB
-
-@chapter Releasing @value{GDBN}
-@cindex making a new release of gdb
+@node Versions and Branches
+@chapter Versions and Branches
-@section Versions and Branches
+@section Versions
-@subsection Version Identifiers
-
-@value{GDBN}'s version is determined by the file @file{gdb/version.in}.
-
-@value{GDBN}'s mainline uses ISO dates to differentiate between
-versions. The CVS repository uses @var{YYYY}-@var{MM}-@var{DD}-cvs
-while the corresponding snapshot uses @var{YYYYMMDD}.
-
-@value{GDBN}'s release branch uses a slightly more complicated scheme.
-When the branch is first cut, the mainline version identifier is
-prefixed with the @var{major}.@var{minor} from of the previous release
-series but with .90 appended. As draft releases are drawn from the
-branch, the minor minor number (.90) is incremented. Once the first
-release (@var{M}.@var{N}) has been made, the version prefix is updated
-to @var{M}.@var{N}.0.90 (dot zero, dot ninety). Follow on releases have
-an incremented minor minor version number (.0).
-
-Using 5.1 (previous) and 5.2 (current), the example below illustrates a
-typical sequence of version identifiers:
+@value{GDBN}'s version is determined by the file
+@file{gdb/version.in} and takes one of the following forms:
@table @asis
-@item 5.1.1
-final release from previous branch
-@item 2002-03-03-cvs
-main-line the day the branch is cut
-@item 5.1.90-2002-03-03-cvs
-corresponding branch version
-@item 5.1.91
-first draft release candidate
-@item 5.1.91-2002-03-17-cvs
-updated branch version
-@item 5.1.92
-second draft release candidate
-@item 5.1.92-2002-03-31-cvs
-updated branch version
-@item 5.1.93
-final release candidate (see below)
-@item 5.2
-official release
-@item 5.2.0.90-2002-04-07-cvs
-updated CVS branch version
-@item 5.2.1
-second official release
+@item @var{major}.@var{minor}
+@itemx @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}
+an official release (e.g., 6.0 or 6.0.1)
+@item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD}
+a snapshot (e.g., 6.0.50_20020630)
+@item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}-@var{MM}-@var{DD}-cvs
+a @sc{cvs} check out (e.g., 6.0.90_2004-02-30-cvs)
+@item @var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD} (@var{vendor})
+a vendor specific release of @value{GDBN}, that while based on@*
+@var{major}.@var{minor}.@var{patchlevel}_@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD},
+may contain additional changes
@end table
-Notes:
+@value{GDBN}'s mainline uses the @var{major} and @var{minor} version
+numbers from the most recent release branch, with a @var{patchlevel}
+of 50. As each new release branch is created, the mainline
+@var{major} and @var{minor} version numbers are accordingly updated.
+
+@value{GDBN}'s release branch uses a similar, but slightly more
+complicated scheme. When the branch is first cut, the mainline's
+@var{patchlevel} is changed to .90. As draft releases are drawn from
+the branch, the @var{patchlevel} is incremented. Once the first
+release (@var{major}.@var{minor}) has been made, the version prefix is
+updated to @var{major}.@var{minor}.0.90. Follow on releases have an
+incremented @var{patchlevel}.
+
+If the previous @value{GDBN} version is 6.1 and the current version is
+6.2, then, substituting 6 for @var{major} and 1 or 2 for @var{minor},
+here's an illustration of a typical sequence:
+
+@smallexample
+ <HEAD>
+ |
+6.1.50_2002-03-02-cvs
+ |
+ +---------------------------.
+ | <gdb_6_2-branch>
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-03-cvs 6.1.90 (draft #1)
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-04-cvs 6.1.90_2002-03-04-cvs
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-05-cvs 6.1.91 (draft #2)
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-06-cvs 6.1.91_2002-03-06-cvs
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-07-cvs 6.2 (release)
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-08-cvs 6.2.0.90_2002-03-08-cvs
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-09-cvs 6.2.1 (update)
+ | |
+6.2.50_2002-03-10-cvs <branch closed>
+ |
+6.2.50_2002-03-11-cvs
+ |
+ +---------------------------.
+ | <gdb_6_3-branch>
+ | |
+6.3.50_2002-03-12-cvs 6.2.90 (draft #1)
+ | |
+@end smallexample
+
+@section Release Branches
+@cindex Release Branches
+
+@value{GDBN} draws a release series (6.2, 6.2.1, @dots{}) from a
+single release branch, and identifies that branch using the @sc{cvs}
+branch tags:
+
+@smallexample
+gdb_@var{major}_@var{minor}-@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD}-branchpoint
+gdb_@var{major}_@var{minor}-branch
+gdb_@var{major}_@var{minor}-@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD}-release
+@end smallexample
+
+@emph{Pragmatics: To help identify the date at which a branch or
+release is made, both the branchpoint and release tags include the
+date that they are cut (@var{YYYY}@var{MM}@var{DD}) in the tag. The
+branch tag, denoting the head of the branch, does not need this.}
-@itemize @bullet
-@item
-Minor minor minor draft release candidates such as 5.2.0.91 have been
-omitted from the example. Such release candidates are, typically, never
-made.
-@item
-For 5.1.93 the bziped tar ball @file{gdb-5.1.93.tar.bz2} is just the
-official @file{gdb-5.2.tar} renamed and compressed.
-@end itemize
+@section Vendor Branches
+@cindex vendor branches
To avoid version conflicts, vendors are expected to modify the file
@file{gdb/version.in} to include a vendor unique alphabetic identifier
(an official @value{GDBN} release never uses alphabetic characters in
-its version identifer).
+its version identifer). E.g., @samp{6.2widgit2}, or @samp{6.2 (Widgit
+Inc Patch 2)}.
-Since @value{GDBN} does not make minor minor minor releases (e.g.,
-5.1.0.1) the conflict between that and a minor minor draft release
-identifier (e.g., 5.1.0.90) is avoided.
+@section Experimental Branches
+@cindex experimental branches
+@subsection Guidelines
-@subsection Branches
+@value{GDBN} permits the creation of branches, cut from the @sc{cvs}
+repository, for experimental development. Branches make it possible
+for developers to share preliminary work, and maintainers to examine
+significant new developments.
-@value{GDBN} draws a release series (5.2, 5.2.1, @dots{}) from a single
-release branch (gdb_5_2-branch). Since minor minor minor releases
-(5.1.0.1) are not made, the need to branch the release branch is avoided
-(it also turns out that the effort required for such a a branch and
-release is significantly greater than the effort needed to create a new
-release from the head of the release branch).
+The following are a set of guidelines for creating such branches:
-Releases 5.0 and 5.1 used branch and release tags of the form:
+@table @emph
-@smallexample
-gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branchpoint
-gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branch
-gdb_M_N-YYYY-MM-DD-release
-@end smallexample
+@item a branch has an owner
+The owner can set further policy for a branch, but may not change the
+ground rules. In particular, they can set a policy for commits (be it
+adding more reviewers or deciding who can commit).
+
+@item all commits are posted
+All changes committed to a branch shall also be posted to
+@email{gdb-patches@@sources.redhat.com, the @value{GDBN} patches
+mailing list}. While commentary on such changes are encouraged, people
+should remember that the changes only apply to a branch.
+
+@item all commits are covered by an assignment
+This ensures that all changes belong to the Free Software Foundation,
+and avoids the possibility that the branch may become contaminated.
+
+@item a branch is focused
+A focused branch has a single objective or goal, and does not contain
+unnecessary or irrelevant changes. Cleanups, where identified, being
+be pushed into the mainline as soon as possible.
+
+@item a branch tracks mainline
+This keeps the level of divergence under control. It also keeps the
+pressure on developers to push cleanups and other stuff into the
+mainline.
+
+@item a branch shall contain the entire @value{GDBN} module
+The @value{GDBN} module @code{gdb} should be specified when creating a
+branch (branches of individual files should be avoided). @xref{Tags}.
+
+@item a branch shall be branded using @file{version.in}
+The file @file{gdb/version.in} shall be modified so that it identifies
+the branch @var{owner} and branch @var{name}, e.g.,
+@samp{6.2.50_20030303_owner_name} or @samp{6.2 (Owner Name)}.
-Release 5.2 is trialing the branch and release tags:
+@end table
-@smallexample
-gdb_N_M-YYYY-MM-DD-branchpoint
-gdb_N_M-branch
-gdb_M_N-YYYY-MM-DD-release
+@subsection Tags
+@anchor{Tags}
+
+To simplify the identification of @value{GDBN} branches, the following
+branch tagging convention is strongly recommended:
+
+@table @code
+
+@item @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint
+@itemx @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branch
+The branch point and corresponding branch tag. @var{YYYYMMDD} is the
+date that the branch was created. A branch is created using the
+sequence: @anchor{experimental branch tags}
+@smallexample
+cvs rtag @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint gdb
+cvs rtag -b -r @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint \
+ @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branch gdb
+@end smallexample
+
+@item @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{yyyymmdd}-mergepoint
+The tagged point, on the mainline, that was used when merging the branch
+on @var{yyyymmdd}. To merge in all changes since the branch was cut,
+use a command sequence like:
+@smallexample
+cvs rtag @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{yyyymmdd}-mergepoint gdb
+cvs update \
+ -j@var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint
+ -j@var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{yyyymmdd}-mergepoint
@end smallexample
+@noindent
+Similar sequences can be used to just merge in changes since the last
+merge.
-@emph{Pragmatics: The branchpoint and release tags need to identify when
-a branch and release are made. The branch tag, denoting the head of the
-branch, does not have this criteria.}
+@end table
+@noindent
+For further information on @sc{cvs}, see
+@uref{http://www.gnu.org/software/cvs/, Concurrent Versions System}.
+
+@node Releasing GDB
+
+@chapter Releasing @value{GDBN}
+@cindex making a new release of gdb
@section Branch Commit Policy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline
2004-10-11 6:30 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2004-10-11 20:21 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-10-12 19:15 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2004-10-11 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: gdb-patches
> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 02:29:56 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> Anyway, I've removed the shall.
>
> Look ok?
Yes, thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline
2004-10-11 20:21 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2004-10-12 19:15 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2004-10-12 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: gdb-patches
>>> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 02:29:56 -0400
>>> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
>>> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>>>
>>> Anyway, I've removed the shall.
>>>
>>> Look ok?
>
>
> Yes, thanks.
Ta., Committed,
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-10-12 19:15 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-21 20:30 [patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline Andrew Cagney
2004-09-22 0:58 ` Joel Brobecker
2004-09-22 13:38 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-10-05 18:36 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-10-06 11:08 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-10-06 22:20 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-10-08 9:47 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-10-11 6:30 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-10-11 20:21 ` Eli Zaretskii
2004-10-12 19:15 ` Andrew Cagney
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox