From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18970 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2002 03:43:43 -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 18958 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 03:43:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 03:43:41 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081063E5A; Wed, 3 Apr 2002 22:43:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CABCBEC.9060304@cygnus.com> Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 19:43:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] import drow dbxread.c fix to branch References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2 >> > If we still have problems for which such solutions are >> > impossible, but which are deemed too grave to not solve them in 5.2, it >> > would mean that the branch was cut too early, and we should consider >> > canceling the branch and starting the release cycle anew. I've known about this one for a month or so - ever since JimB approved FredF's symtab change and MichaelC promptly flaged the regressions it caused. As far as I know, my options were: - delay the branch until it the regressions were fixed (an unknown time frame) - branch but threaten to pull the patch unless JimB (who approved it) fixed the problem - branch and ship with the regression (not an option) I went with the second option. Fortunatly (for JimB), DanielJ found a fix for the problem and that has slowly been working its way into the branch. >> That's always an option. My opinion at this time is that we are not >> at all close to needing a re-branch. > > > I wrote that because the number of changes that are retrofitted into the > branch is disturbingly high (IMHO). Perhaps Andrew should have held us > under the threat of the branch slightly longer. > > I alwaus thought that a branch is effectively feature-frozen. Perhaps I > misunderstood the policy. This one is a regression :-( Andrew