From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31581 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2004 18:15:29 -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 31570 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2004 18:15:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 26 Jul 2004 18:15:28 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i6QIFSe3013636 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:15:28 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i6QIFRa17367; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:15:27 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D201B2B9D; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 14:15:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41054A3B.1040900@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:15:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Baurjan Ismagulov Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: ping: Re: handling of absolute source file paths References: <20040420154855.GD9020@ata.cs.hacettepe.edu.tr> <20040501171420.GB21679@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <9743-Sat01May2004211140+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <20040508212208.GA1019@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <6137-Tue11May2004190737+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <20040717182228.GA24895@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <20040723195820.GA3151@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <3405-Sat24Jul2004101857+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <41051BD4.3000308@gnu.org> <20040726152050.GA14429@ata.cs.hacettepe.edu.tr> In-Reply-To: <20040726152050.GA14429@ata.cs.hacettepe.edu.tr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00369.txt.bz2 >>>For now, just to mainline, think about 6.2 branch after 6.2 is out. > > > What is the reason for that (just to understand how such matters are > handled)? The emphasis is on getting changes into the mainline for the next release (and it is now very very late in the 6.2 release cycle). For reference: > @section Branch Commit Policy > > The branch commit policy is pretty slack. @value{GDBN} releases 5.0, > 5.1 and 5.2 all used the below: > > @itemize @bullet > @item > The @file{gdb/MAINTAINERS} file still holds. > @item > Don't fix something on the branch unless/until it is also fixed in the > trunk. If this isn't possible, mentioning it in the @file{gdb/PROBLEMS} > file is better than committing a hack. > @item > When considering a patch for the branch, suggested criteria include: > Does it fix a build? Does it fix the sequence @kbd{break main; run} > when debugging a static binary? > @item > The further a change is from the core of @value{GDBN}, the less likely > the change will worry anyone (e.g., target specific code). > @item > Only post a proposal to change the core of @value{GDBN} after you've > sent individual bribes to all the people listed in the > @file{MAINTAINERS} file @t{;-)} > @end itemize > > @emph{Pragmatics: Provided updates are restricted to non-core > functionality there is little chance that a broken change will be fatal. > This means that changes such as adding a new architectures or (within > reason) support for a new host are considered acceptable.} Andrew