From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18607 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2002 15:48:04 -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 18596 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2002 15:48:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Aug 2002 15:48:04 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17kSSo-0006Ft-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:48:10 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17kRXW-0000G3-00; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 11:48:58 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 08:48:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB 5.3 Branch 4th Sept 00:00 GMT Message-ID: <20020829154856.GA934@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3D6E3FCE.5080500@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D6E3FCE.5080500@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00399.txt.bz2 On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:37:50AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Hello, > > It looks like this date is going to hold. I'll cut the branch using `-D > 2002-09-04' probably 12-24 hrs after the event. This lets me look back > at what was happening around 2002-09-04-gmt and decide if making the cut > really is a good idea :-) > > 15.2 Branch Commit Policy > http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdbint_15.html#SEC132 > > The branch commit policy is pretty slack. GDB releases 5.0, 5.1 and 5.2 > all used the below: > > * The `gdb/MAINTAINERS' file still holds. > * Don't fix something on the branch unless/until it is also fixed > in the trunk. If this isn't possible, mentioning it in the > `gdb/PROBLEMS' file is better than committing a hack. > * When considering a patch for the branch, suggested criteria > include: Does it fix a build? Does it fix the sequence break main; run > when debugging a static binary? > * The further a change is from the core of GDB, the less likely the > change will worry anyone (e.g., target specific code). > * Only post a proposal to change the core of GDB after you've sent > individual bribes to all the people listed in the `MAINTAINERS' file ;-) > > Pragmatics: Provided updates are restricted to non-core functionality > there is little chance that a broken change will be fatal. This means > that changes such as adding a new architectures or (within reason) > support for a new host are considered acceptable. > > A guess at date for the next release (5.4/6.0) is March '03. > http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/schedule/ Wrong row, schedule says February :) Looks good to me. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer