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

Elena Zannoni
2001-02-16T12:29:00Z

Kevin Buettner writes:
> On Feb 16, 11:57am, J.T. Conklin wrote:
>
> > If I'm not misremembering the 5.0.XX convention (perhaps it's only
> > used for formal 5.1 test releases), I'd approve the change. I
> > strongly prefer that form to "-experimental". But I would prefer
> > input from others, cuz it seems somehow wrong to approve your own
> > proposal.
>
> I think that 5.0.XX makes sense for the branch that'll eventually be
> created for the 5.1 release. For the development sources, I think
> that Michael C's suggestion of "5.1-experimental" (or whatever it was)
> is preferable since it also clearly distinguishes between release
> candidates and the ongoing development on the trunk.
>
> Kevin
>

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.

Mon Mar 2 17:04:25 1998 Jason Molenda (crash@bugshack.cygnus.com)

* Makefile (VERSION): Bump to 4.17.1.

Mon Apr 22 20:17:01 1996 Fred Fish <fnf@cygnus.com>

* Makefile.in (VERSION): Bump version number to 4.16.1.
* NEWS: Update for 4.16 release.

Wed Feb 28 15:50:12 1996 Fred Fish <fnf@cygnus.com>

* Makefile.in (VERSION): Bump version to 4.15.2 to establish
baseline for gdb 4.16 rerelease testing.

Wed Oct 11 17:25:59 1995 Fred Fish <fnf@rtl.cygnus.com>

* Makefile.in (VERSION): Bump version to 4.15.1

Tue Oct 10 15:26:39 1995 Fred Fish <fnf@cygnus.com>

* Makefile.in (VERSION): Version 4.15 released.
* README: Updated for version 4.15.
* NEWS: Updated for 4.15 release.

Etc. Etc.

I am in favour of 5.0.1, which is consistent with what we did in the
past.

Elena