Re: [patch 0/3] Re: [RFA] c++/11734 revisited (and c++/12273)

Joel Brobecker
2011-03-17T12:41:43Z

> > Does it mean that we should be good to go for the 7.2.1 release soon?
>
> There is yet
> Re: [RFA] c++/12506
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-03/msg00742.html
>
> which is also a physname regression and the fix is not anything large IMO.

Thanks for pointing this one out. I've added it to both 7.2 & 7.3
checklists.

> > It seems that finding these fixes have been a bit long and treacherous,
> > so we may want to think twice about putting it in 7.2 (?);
>
> as 7.3 should be released soon with all the delays on 7.2.x I am no longer
> sure how much valid is the 7.2.x release now.

I'm with you on the relative usefulness of producing a 7.2.1, and
I'm not sure that I would use it myself or not. So I'm happy to
drop this release. But it's only about an hour of my time, so I am
also just as happy making it, if it's useful to someone.

For 7.3, we still have a few extra items to take care of:
* Merge your work on the ifunc branch
* Pedro's <unavailable> value support
* NEWS & Manual checks (easy and probably fast)

Once this is done, we can branch, and produce our first RC, but it's
then at least another 2 weeks before we produce the first release.
So, I'm going to venture a guess that we're still, say, 4 weeks away
from release.

--
Joel