From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19703 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2002 21:18:24 -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 19553 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2002 21:18:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sj1-3-4-16.securesites.net) (192.220.127.209) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2002 21:18:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 29246 invoked by uid 19025); 17 Jan 2002 21:18:15 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 13:18:00 -0000 From: Jason Molenda To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB 5.1.1 scheduled 00:00 24 Jan 2002 GMT Message-ID: <20020117131815.A27451@molenda.com> References: <3C473CF1.90201@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3C473CF1.90201@cygnus.com>; from ac131313@cygnus.com on Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:06:57PM -0500 X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00191.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 04:06:57PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > I'm planning on creating a GDB 5.1.1 from the head of the GDB 5.1 branch > on or about 24 January 2002 GMT. It is traditional cvs usage to do all 5.1.* releases off of a single branch, the gdb-5_1-branch. Creating a new branch for the 5.1.1 changes gains you little but some juked up cvs branch structure. If a 5.1.2 release happens, would that be based off of the 5.1 branch, or another branch branched off the tip of 5.1.1? What if a 5.1.1a had to be made to correct something small? If a 5.1.1.1a branch happens and a 5.1.2 has to happen, does that mean the 5.1.2 is branched off the tip of 5.1.1a branch or 5.1.1? I know the gdb releases won't be so complicated, but why start a precedent like this? Instead, a single branch, gdb-5_1-branch, can be used for all of these. You tag the releases, so when 5.1 is released you put a tag like gdb-5_1-release on it. You continue to check in small patches to gdb-5_1-branch. When 5.1.1 is ready, you add another tag, gdb-5_1_1-release. 5.1.1a? More checkins on the 5.1 branch, another -release tag. Same thing for 5.1.2. Incidentally, this also touches on a style nit of mine that I've talked to Andrew about in the past in direct mail, but I'm strongly opposed to encoding dates in the branch names. The thinking behind gdb-5_1-20010914-branch (or whatever it was) is that you can guess when the sources were branched off the trunk. If that's an important piece of information, encode it in the branchpoint tag (gdb-5_1-2001-09-14-branchpoint) which people rarely have to type on their own, and call the branch something sensible like gdb-5_1-branch. By encoding the date in the branch tag, which people have to use often, you make them remember arbitrary information which doesn't disambiguate anything. I can check out a copy of the gcc 3.0 branch without looking at a single web page, without checking a single tag list -- any reasonable person can guess what it will look like. No reasonable person can guess what the gdb 5.1 branch name might be. You could just as easily include a few bytes of /dev/random in there for all it does. I apologize if I come off sounding overly indignant about this, but it's really annoying and I shake my head in disappointment each time see this practice becoming codified or think about it being emulated in future branches. Jason