From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31427 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2011 00:09:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 31419 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2011 00:09:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:08:45 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAG08j53026884 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:08:45 -0500 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-26.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.26]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pAG08hMV029566 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:08:44 -0500 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAG08gxF003879; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:08:42 +0100 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id pAG08gUp003878; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:08:42 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 00:09:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: implement ambiguous linespec proposal Message-ID: <20111116000842.GA30589@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20111028221459.GA28467@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20111104074543.GA13839@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00408.txt.bz2 On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:30:18 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote: > I'm having second thoughts about this. Today it seems slightly crazy to > check in such a huge patch just before a release. Any other thoughts on > this? Maybe to formalize more the GDB releng process? I thought before branching any development is valid - like stage1 of GCC. Still more time could give more reviews, for whatever reason I for example haven't yet run a regression test on `break'ing on all symbols of Fedora .debug files which found regressions in Keith's patchset, also I haven't yet found energy for the full review for whatever reason. But it is also true it would miss 7.4 that way and the patch benefits look to be worth possible minor regressions. Just FYI my $0.02 as I was in To. Thanks, Jan