From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12565 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2008 17:58:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 12551 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Mar 2008 17:58:18 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:57:48 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FD95983B5; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:57:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC830983AA; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:57:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JaEA4-00089J-O7; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 13:57:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 17:58:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Andreas Schwab , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [commit/branch] Version set to 6.7.90 Message-ID: <20080314175744.GA31306@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Andreas Schwab , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080313175220.GB11778@adacore.com> <20080314172900.GK3738@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080314172900.GK3738@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:29:00AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > This is unfortunate, since 6.7.90 is smaller than 6.7.90.20080313-cvs. > > It would have been better to bump the version to 6.7.91. > > I'm just following the guidelines that are documented at > http://www.sourceware.org/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdbint_16.html#SEC129. > The reason why it sounds strange is because I think the guidelines > are assuming that I should be making the first pre-release off the > branchpoint, so there should be no 6.7.90.something before 6.7.90. Right. But if you don't make that snapshot, the first prerelease should be 6.7.91; version numbers going backwards is bad mojo :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery