From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: 5.1 ERRATA file? Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: <3C033A28.50209@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg00276.html Message-ID: <20011126230100.1QoxjQPiDGSAbLqCnG_C40f2qoz0s0aLY9oRq1IYbWg@z> Hello, Something I noticed from the feedback so far is that it is hard to know what problems a release will have - they are burried in the file gdb/README. What do people think of them being moved to the file gdb/ERRATA? Then again, the GNU coding standard might override such an idea :-/ (This is more of a policy decision so I've posted it to gdb@ rather than gdb-patches@) Andrew >From ac131313@cygnus.com Mon Nov 26 23:24:00 2001 From: Andrew Cagney To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: 5.1.1 commit policy Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:24:00 -0000 Message-id: <3C033F9C.8070001@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg00277.html Content-length: 1087 Same rules as for 5.1 apply :-) http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2001-07/msg00418.html > There, er, is no 5.1 branch commit policy. Instead the MAINTAINERS file > still holds. > > The only things I ask are: > > o > don't fix something on the branch > unless/until it is also fixed in > the trunk. If this isn't possible > then I think a mention in the > gdb/README file is better. > > o > try criteria like: > - does it fix a build build > - does does it fix break main, > run on a static binary > > o > only propose changes to core-gdb > after you've sent individual > bribes to all the people listed > in the MAINTAINERS file :-) > > o > the further you are away from > core-gdb then the less likely > that it will worry me (i.e. target > specific code). > > enjoy, > Andrew > > looks like some fixes for HP/UX at least will be available. That top level tweek, for instance, can probably be put onto the branch. Andrew PS: If you need to send a bribe, I've organied a credit card facility - dial +1 555 123 4567 and just follow the prompts ;-)