From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6104 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2013 14:21:46 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 6092 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jun 2013 14:21:45 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:21:45 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6A2B1C73B6; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:21:43 -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 1Jp7LWFT0jtJ; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:21:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7061F1C7381; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 10:21:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C0FE9D5250; Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:21:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:25:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Hans-Peter Nilsson , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] don't keep a gdb-specific date Message-ID: <20130625142141.GF5326@adacore.com> References: <1371835865-15879-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <871u7rwodv.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20130624224138.GC5326@adacore.com> <87y59ythcd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y59ythcd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00700.txt.bz2 > I think rather we have to back out the patch. > IIRC you can't really change the definition of modules like that. > sim using this file in gdb is an error, IMO, but not one I think is > worth a lot of effort to fix. > I'll prepare a reversion patch shortly. How about duplicating version.in instead? The version number would only need to be updated after creating the branch, and one extra file every 3 months is not going to kill me. I think having a common version.in and using BFD's date was a step in the right direction. It would be a shame to lose all the efforts we've made just because of some CVS module interdependency. This is especially true if we ever want to move to another version-control system where GDB and the sim would be one repository. -- Joel