From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31632 invoked by alias); 16 May 2006 20:13:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 31624 invoked by uid 22791); 16 May 2006 20:13:21 -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; Tue, 16 May 2006 20:13:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9221E48CED1 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 16:13:17 -0400 (EDT) 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 05292-01-10 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 16:13:17 -0400 (EDT) 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 4B1AE48CEB6 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 16:13:17 -0400 (EDT) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id D87A347E7F; Tue, 16 May 2006 13:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 20:22:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Update README post gdb-6.5 branch creation Message-ID: <20060516201316.GC27234@adacore.com> References: <20060516200632.GR4123@adacore.com> <20060516201144.GA12800@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060516201144.GA12800@nevyn.them.org> 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: 2006-05/txt/msg00362.txt.bz2 > > 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. I think this is a very good idea. -- Joel