From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7429 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2006 17:01:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 7413 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2006 17:01:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-71-248-179-247.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (71.248.179.247) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:01:19 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id E3BE013C468; Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:01:17 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:19:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Time for a new release? Message-ID: <20060315170117.GA3806@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20060315043747.GA695@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060315043747.GA695@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00195.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 08:37:47PM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: >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? Isn't this kind of email better suited for the gdb mailing list rather than the gdb-patches mailing list? FWIW, I am tracking down, in slow motion, a problem with the latest gdb under cygwin where gdb SEGVs when stepping over some cygwin DLL functions. I don't think that's any reason to hold up a release unless this turns out to be a generic problem. cgf