Re: CVS versions of gdb have same number as stable version.

[Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 01:33:02PM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote:
>Elena Zannoni wrote:
>> 
>> Let's look at the history:
>> 
>> 1999-04-09  Jim Blandy  <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>
>> 
>>         * GDB 4.18 released.
>>         * Makefile.in (VERSION): Bump to 4.18.1.
>> 
>> [...]
>
>In retrospect, this hasn't been a great choice, because of the
>potential for confusion with real releases.  It's not been too
>much of a problem in practice, compared to GCC, because people
>don't tend to pick up as many prerelease GDB versions (because
>it's perfect already, of course. :-) ).  GDB has also tended
>not to have too many point releases.
>
>So for consistency with other projects, I'd favor calling it 5.0.90
>now, and 5.1.90 right after the next release, and to update an
>appended date every day - that has been very handy for GCC.

I like this idea.  The gcc group has just established an account on
gcc.gnu.org for handling administrative stuff like this.

If necessary, we could set up a gdb administrative account which
just handled regular cron'able tasks like this, too.

cgf