From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
To: ac131313@cygnus.com
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: What is on the 5.1 branch; Was: [rfc] Re: read_register_bytes() bug; was my Regcache revamp
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 23:10:00 -0000
Message-id: <7263-Mon20Aug2001090940+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
References: <3B7EAF09.4010801@cygnus.com> <3B7ED838.70607@cygnus.com> <9743-Sun19Aug2001093055+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <3B80A35B.3060504@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-08/msg00227.html

> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 01:42:51 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
> 
> As far as I know most of the patches going past at the moment are not 
> going onto the branch(1).  Hmm, quick check, I've attached a copy of the 
> 5.1 ChangeLog.

Thanks.

Why aren't the entries there in chronological order?

> > Perhaps in the future each patch could tell explicitly whether it is
> > meant ffor the branch or not, to prevent confusion.
> 
> I've been using the prefix [.../5.1] for anything 5.1 related.

Perhaps everyone could follow that convention.