From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2190 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2006 04:37:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 2182 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2006 04:37:51 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 04:37:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0391648CBFF for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:37:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 28252-01-10 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:37:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net [142.179.108.108]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA14E48CBF9 for ; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 23:37:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 1936547E7F; Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:37:47 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 16:16:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Time for a new release? Message-ID: <20060315043747.GA695@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00186.txt.bz2 Hello, It's been almost 4 months since the last release (6.4). I was unfortunately too busy lately to follow closely the GDB development. I looked at the NEWS file, and see a few interesting thing there. New commands, improved windows host support, etc. Perhaps it is time to think about a new release? I'm thinking about the following timeline: Branch: Apr 3rd Pre-release: Apr 5th Release: Apr 19th Basically, a first pre-release a couple of days after branching. And then the first release if all goes well two weeks after, to give us some time to flush any issue we might find. Also, do we want to distribute GDB with -Werror enabled? It's fair to have us build GDB with -Werror, but I would feel more comfortable distributing something that's easier to compiler for the end user. I think this will avoid some traffic from users who don't know what to do with the fatal warnings. Thoughts? -- Joel