From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25708 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2003 17:22:07 -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 25697 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2003 17:22:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 2 Jan 2003 17:22:03 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h02H6i328000; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:06:44 -0600 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 17:22:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301021706.h02H6i328000@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB 5.3.1 vs 5.4/6.0 X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney asks: > Still, the question is: should the next release be 5.3.1, or 5.4/6.0? I prefer 5.4/6.0. For a given # of developer hours, we can get more done on a trunk than on a branch + trunk. My 5.3 versus HEAD comparison tables are pretty healthy. There are no C++ regressions versus gdb (gcc is deteriorating but that is a different story). All the MI tests changed so I can't compare them between 5.3 and HEAD, but HEAD doesn't have big screaming blocks of non-PASSEes in MI. There are about 5-10 things to look at overall including the individual MI non-PASSes, which means there are probably 1-2 real bugs. The bug database is pretty quiet. There are about 10 bugs filed against 5.3. I don't feel like people are screaming at us for a 5.3.1. Michael C