From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11343 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2006 19:41:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 11333 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Mar 2006 19:41:07 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:41:06 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FKKoq-00058b-SK for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:41:04 -0500 Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 01:31:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Time for a new release? Message-ID: <20060317194104.GD19068@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20060315043747.GA695@adacore.com> <20060315170117.GA3806@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060315170117.GA3806@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i 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/msg00233.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 15, 2006 at 12:01:17PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > 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 Sounds reasonable to me. I know I have a lot of things coming up that I don't want to sneak "under the wire" into a release - I'll want to give them a lot of time to settle down. > >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. This is a pretty aggressive schedule; if we want the release to receive broad testing, I recommend waiting a bit longer. > >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. I agree. Maybe some day it will be appropriate to ship GDB with -Werror, but I'd rather not do it immediately. > Isn't this kind of email better suited for the gdb mailing list rather > than the gdb-patches mailing list? Yes please. I know a lot of people use gdb@ as the user list and gdb-patches@ as the development list, but I've always considered gdb-patches to be a list strictly about patches. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery