From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7522 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2011 12:41:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 7509 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Mar 2011 12:41:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:41:35 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD3502BAB4E; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:41:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id fnrbrPkIUCXQ; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:41:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820742BAB4D; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 08:41:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3EDE91459B0; Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:41:28 +0400 (RET) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 13:21:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Keith Seitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] Re: [RFA] c++/11734 revisited (and c++/12273) Message-ID: <20110317124128.GX31264@adacore.com> References: <20110227211637.GA18378@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <4D6D6C74.8080304@redhat.com> <20110313222824.GA24322@host1.jankratochvil.net> <4D7FB469.9080703@redhat.com> <20110316065928.GA3316@host1.jankratochvil.net> <4D8130B1.6070505@redhat.com> <20110316232046.GV31264@adacore.com> <20110317031911.GA13470@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110317031911.GA13470@host1.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-03/txt/msg00892.txt.bz2 > > 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 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