From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: RFA: implement ambiguous linespec proposal
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:58:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111116015838.GI5390@adacore.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111116000842.GA30589@host1.jankratochvil.net>
> > 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.
IMO, it is (allowed). A little bit of stabilization before the branch
would be nice, but we have the branch to do any stabilization, if
required.
That being said, if the patch is huge and touches a sensitive part of
the debugger, we might be setting ourselves up for another situation
similar to what we got with the physname patch.
So, I'm personally 50-50 on this. If we want to compromise, we can
branch 7.4 without this patch, but start 7.5 shortly after (within
a few weeks, or a month after). I agree with Pierre that this is
a very nice improvement, so we should try to get it out in a release
sooner rather than later.
--
Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-16 1:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-28 17:34 Tom Tromey
2011-10-28 20:52 ` Matt Rice
2011-11-01 20:38 ` Tom Tromey
2011-10-28 22:41 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-11-01 20:58 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-03 20:49 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-04 7:46 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-11-08 16:36 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-09 16:05 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-11-09 17:12 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-09 17:56 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-11-09 18:19 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-09 19:00 ` Joel Brobecker
2011-11-14 21:04 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-14 21:32 ` Jerome Guitton
2011-11-09 18:37 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-14 21:11 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-15 16:30 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-15 16:59 ` Pierre Muller
2011-11-16 0:09 ` Jan Kratochvil
2011-11-16 1:58 ` Joel Brobecker [this message]
2011-11-16 14:46 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-18 14:10 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 21:23 ` Stan Shebs
2011-11-16 2:28 ` Yao Qi
2011-11-16 3:20 ` Doug Evans
2011-11-16 14:46 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 16:06 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 4:57 ` Doug Evans
2011-11-16 5:22 ` Doug Evans
2011-11-16 14:54 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 16:32 ` Doug Evans
2011-11-16 16:39 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 14:49 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 8:15 ` Yao Qi
2011-11-16 16:17 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 15:43 ` Yao Qi
2011-11-16 16:11 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-16 16:44 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-17 3:49 ` Yao Qi
2011-11-21 21:50 ` Tom Tromey
2011-11-23 21:33 ` Tom Tromey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111116015838.GI5390@adacore.com \
--to=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=tromey@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox