From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cagney To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: 5.1 ERRATA file? Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 23:15:00 -0000 Message-ID: <3C048F04.10203@cygnus.com> References: <3C033A28.50209@cygnus.com> <20011127070345.A43139@oolong.il.thewrittenword.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg00300.html Message-ID: <20011127231500.37dX27QuPBqmgZr6EPwJVFrUEBj-CtL9--vjKPIg9YU@z> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 09:41:03AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001, Andrew Cagney wrote: >> > >> > 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? > >> >> I suggest gdb/PROBLEMS or even (gasp) gdb/BUGS. > > > Emacs has PROBLEMS. Hmm, while I prefer ERRATA, I'm never one to pass up an oportunity that lets me use EMACS as the rationale for a decision. -> PROBLEMS (ulgh). Again? I think BUGS would be confusing. A problem might be caused by several bugs -> HP/UX. Andrew