From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29985 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2011 01:58:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 29976 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Nov 2011 01:58:55 -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; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:58:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 226242BB3DB; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:58:41 -0500 (EST) 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 WmSAqBlZFbBp; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:58:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 051F52BB393; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:58:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 776C9145615; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:58:38 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:58:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: implement ambiguous linespec proposal Message-ID: <20111116015838.GI5390@adacore.com> References: <20111028221459.GA28467@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20111104074543.GA13839@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20111116000842.GA30589@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111116000842.GA30589@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: 2011-11/txt/msg00409.txt.bz2 > > 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