From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10547 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2002 04:10:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10515 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2002 04:10:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.cygnus.com) (24.114.42.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2002 04:10:09 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.cygnus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B063D1F; Sun, 13 Jan 2002 23:09:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C425A0B.90807@cygnus.com> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 20:10:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20020103 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix test script ERRORs in 5.1 branch References: <200201140347.VAA16912@duracef.shout.net> <20020113225315.A21807@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00376.txt.bz2 > On Sun, Jan 13, 2002 at 09:47:27PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > >> I'd like to request approval to port this test script patch >> from mainline to the 5.1 branch: >> >> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-cvs/2001-10/msg00156.html >> >> This looks like an obvious fix to me, but I want to be conservative about >> changing the branch. Note that the only changes are in test suite files. >> >> My motivation: I run test suites on both mainline and 5.1 branch and >> I write explanations of every ERROR and WARNING. It will make my life >> easier to remove ERRORs from the 5.1 branch, because then I won't have >> to keep seeing them and keep checking that they are the same error as >> the last test suite run. > > > My impression is that Andrew's leaning more towards a 5.2 release than > a 5.1.1 release, so I don't know if it would be worth the effort... Or the political compromize: Spin what ever is at the head of the 5.1 branch as 5.1.1 while simultaneously cutting the branch for 5.2. Michael, pulling the test cases over doesn't worry me. Er, almost. The trunk contains some recently OBSOLETE code so you'd need care there. Andrew