From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30643 invoked by alias); 16 May 2006 20:11:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 30634 invoked by uid 22791); 16 May 2006 20:11:49 -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; Tue, 16 May 2006 20:11:47 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1Fg5tQ-0003Ld-7V; Tue, 16 May 2006 16:11:44 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 20:12:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Update README post gdb-6.5 branch creation Message-ID: <20060516201144.GA12800@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20060516200632.GR4123@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060516200632.GR4123@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 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: 2006-05/txt/msg00360.txt.bz2 On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 01:06:32PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hello, > > Now that the gdb-6.5 branch has been created, one the items that needs > to be done is the update of the README file. Normally, it just consists > of bumping the version number up, but in this case, I have a question. > > The version number currently used is gdb-6.3. In the 6.5 branch, I think > it makes sense to have it use gdb-6.5. But in the head, I think it makes > sense to use gdb-6.6. That way, assuming we follow the usual pattern of > only increasing the minor version number for the next release, I don't > have to update this file at all after I cut the gdb-6.6 branch. > > I therefore propose the following patch for the head: > > 2006-05-16 Joel Brobecker > > * README: Update GDB version number. > > What do you guys think? For at least the last couple of releases, this file has just gotten sedded. Should we have a README.in instead? It would still need to be proofread at some point on the release checklist - but GCC has adopted a strict "version number in one place only" policy and it seems to be quite helpful. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery