From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: CVS versions of gdb have same number as stable version. Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:30:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010216173014.A22326@redhat.com> References: <200102161928.LAA00929@bosch.cygnus.com> <5mhf1u9z9y.fsf@jtc.redback.com> <1010216201646.ZM12268@ocotillo.lan> <14989.36272.996420.519178@kwikemart.cygnus.com> <3A8D9C8D.208FFB30@apple.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00242.html 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 >> >> * 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