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 12:21:00 -0000
Message-id: <200102162020.MAA01121@bosch.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-02/msg00236.html

Hi J. T.,

> No, I meant gdb snapshots.

My error.  I'm confusing "CVS" with snapshots.  I will download a bunch
of snapshots and have a look at them.

> Note that's not exactly what I said.  I think it is a good idea for a bit
> of brainstorming to ensure that the problem is well understood, decisions 
> are not clear cut, etc.

I *did* that.

  From chastain Fri Feb 16 08:07:18 2001
  To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
  Subject: CVS versions of gdb have same number as stable version.
  ...
  This bothers me.  I've filed a PR about it.
  Can we please use something other than "5.0" for CVS gdb, such as
  "5.1-experimental-$(DATE)", or even just "5.1-experimental"?

  From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
  Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:34:25 -0500
  Subject: Re: CVS versions of gdb have same number as stable version.
  Why not fix it?  I'm sure you're sufficiently expert in CVS to figure
  out the magic we need to add to change that line.
  ...
  As for snapshots, they already get a time stamp.

[Look, you can see me being stupid about the snapshot timestamps, ouch].

I start by asking for a discussion, and I get "Why not fix it?"
So I fix it, test it, submit a patch, and now I get a discussion.

> None of the above?  

OK.  "5.1-experimental" is not approved, and I'm out of time.  I've
changed the responsible person back to "unassigned" and the state back
to "open".

Michael