From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 64288 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2015 20:06:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 64275 invoked by uid 89); 3 Jun 2015 20:06:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mailrelay102.isp.belgacom.be Received: from mailrelay102.isp.belgacom.be (HELO mailrelay102.isp.belgacom.be) (195.238.20.129) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:06:46 +0000 X-Belgacom-Dynamic: yes X-Cloudmark-SP-Filtered: true X-Cloudmark-SP-Result: v=1.1 cv=d6O4W030xngO5QkzyDOul/vmjwC4sFqcTOV5kZr+d1k= c=1 sm=2 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=S-BmFUsP3bS-GYsnqTUA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2CVAQBPXW9V/xSZgW0NTodgwxQCghMBAQEBAQGFLQEBAQMBI1YQCxgCAiYCAlcGiDgNtnxwo2MBAQEBAQUBAQEBHoEhiiKFBgeCaIFFAQS1d4EFgSkcgVSDNAEBAQ Received: from 20.153-129-109.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (HELO [192.168.1.11]) ([109.129.153.20]) by relay.skynet.be with ESMTP; 03 Jun 2015 22:06:43 +0200 Subject: Re: 2 weeks to GDB 7.10 tentative branching date! From: Philippe Waroquiers To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Gary Benson , Pedro Alves , Doug Evans In-Reply-To: <20150603173820.GD2801@adacore.com> References: <20150601213709.GC2631@adacore.com> <1433277945.2976.2.camel@soleil> <20150603173820.GD2801@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 20:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <1433362019.2339.2.camel@soleil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00060.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 10:38 -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > FWIW, it would be nice, but given that this is not a regression, > It would be hard justifying the release because of it. At least > not by very much. Effectively, this is a 'would be nice'. > > What I propose is putting this item on the "Maybe" list, and try > to get the patch in by mid June. If, by then, the patch or the > desired behavior is still under discussion, then re-evaluate our > situation. In particular, if the patch is really close, then wait. > Otherwise, give the patch more time to mature, and cut the branch > without it. Does it sound reasonable? So, yes, for sure, what you propose is reasonable. Philippe