From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9884 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2001 17:27:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 9751 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2001 17:26:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Dec 2001 17:26:40 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16GkUF-0005hA-00; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:26:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 09:27:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: 5.1.1 Message-ID: <20011219122635.A21816@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3C2063B5.8090805@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C2063B5.8090805@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00170.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 09:53:57AM +0000, Andrew Cagney wrote: > I suspect that there are enough things now to justify a 5.1.1. Can I > suggest spinning it out sometime mid summer (January for the > geographicaly impaired :-) >From the 5.1 branch, I assume? If so, I'd like to get the last two C++ patches approved, test the complete set on the branch, and apply them if they cause no regressions. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer