From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25029 invoked by alias); 2 Jan 2003 17:19:59 -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 24962 invoked from network); 2 Jan 2003 17:19:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 2 Jan 2003 17:19:56 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h02HJWu28192; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 11:19:32 -0600 Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 17:19:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301021719.h02HJWu28192@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@redhat.com, brobecker@gnat.com Subject: Re: GDB 5.3.1 vs 5.4/6.0 Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker writes: > I think we have enough valuable fixes in the 5.3 branch to make a 5.3.1 > release worth-while. Huh? Every one of the valuable fixes are already in the gdb 5.3 release. There's nothing more to release. I mean that literally. The only change since the release is the version number bump to 5.3.0.90. Are you saying that the 5.3 release has a lot of fixes that need to be forward-ported to HEAD, or what? Michael C % cvs diff -r gdb_5_3-12-12-release -r gdb_5_3-branch Index: gdb/ChangeLog =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/ChangeLog,v retrieving revision 1.3181.2.54 retrieving revision 1.3181.2.55 diff -r1.3181.2.54 -r1.3181.2.55 0a1,4 > 2002-12-11 GDB Administrator > > * version.in: Bump to version 5.3.0.90. > Index: gdb/version.in =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/version.in,v retrieving revision 1.447.2.104 retrieving revision 1.447.2.127 diff -r1.447.2.104 -r1.447.2.127 1c1 < 5.3 --- > 5.3.0.90_2003-01-02-cvs