From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 115568 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2020 15:37:35 -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 115560 invoked by uid 89); 1 Feb 2020 15:37:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:758 X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Feb 2020 15:37:34 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 895711E5FA; Sat, 1 Feb 2020 10:37:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Propose we release GDB 9.1 next weekend (Feb 01-02) To: Joel Brobecker , tom@tromey.com Cc: Jonah Graham , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves , Iain Buclaw , Nick Alcock , Eli Zaretskii References: <20200126114033.GA20733@adacore.com> <20200201121720.GA30012@adacore.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2020 15:37:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200201121720.GA30012@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00020.txt.bz2 On 2020-02-01 7:17 a.m., Joel Brobecker wrote: > For the release, it's indeed a bit on the fence. Given the nature of > the patch, With a bit of careful review, we should be able to convince > ourselves that this patch is sufficiently safe, particularly for a .1. > On the other hand, I think the patch that triggered the regression is > a fairly minor enhancement (name of the file printed by annotations). > So perhaps the best way forward is to revert the triggering patch > from the gdb-9-branch. Yeah, I think it would be better to revert Tom's patch for the release. For master, we can take the time to think about what we want long term, and if a patch like the one I proposed useful. Simon