From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain@cygnus.com>
To: jtc@redback.com
Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: CVS versions of gdb have same number as stable version.
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:29:00 -0000
Message-id: <200102161928.LAA00929@bosch.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00226.html

Hi J. T.,

> Don't other GNU projects do things like 5.0.XX, where XX starts off at
> a high number like 80 and is periodically incremented until the next
> release?

I will change it to "5.0.90", or whatever, if a maintainer with the
authority to approve this patch specifies an exact string and states
that they will approve that string.

Then I'll check in such patch without another round of [RFA].

> Another alternative would be a date stamp, similar to GDB snapshots.

I think you mean "similar to gcc snapshots".  I'm not going to do that.
gcc has additional configury to do that, and I am not going to port that
configury and then qualify it on a bunch of platforms.

Instead I'm going to spend my time in gdb/7, analyzing why gdb core dumps
when I do "maint print symbols" in some gdb that calls itself 5.0 on the
user's system.  If I can get bleeding edge CVS gdb to quit calling itself
5.0, that makes my task easier.  (Not to mention I have a day job.)

If someone else wants to do "gdb ...-$(DATE)", great.  This patch won't
make their work any more difficult.

I hate this pattern:

  Would-be contributor notices a bug.
  Would-be contributor writes a patch.
  Maintainer says: "if you're going to fix the problem, how about doing
    lots more work while you are in there?"

My patch is on the table.

  -- approved?
  -- specific counter-proposal?
  -- rejected?

Michael