From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12013 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2003 08:26:45 -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 11566 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2003 08:24:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 30 Jan 2003 08:24:37 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0U8OZL04427; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 02:24:35 -0600 Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 08:26:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301300824.h0U8OZL04427@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB respin X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00512.txt.bz2 [I'm partially back. I can read my mail, and I can run my test bed, but I'm not caught up on stuff. -- Michael C] Andrew Cagney asks: > Should there be a 5.3.1. So far not much has been comitted to the > branch. However, there have been a number of configure / build bug reports. My preference would be to not produce 5.3.1. It seems like a low-yield use of resources to me. Are the configure/build problems fixed in HEAD? For those problems which are not fixed in HEAD: we need to do that anyways, no matter what For those problems which are fixed in HEAD: ask the bug report submitters to try a HEAD snapshot put the PR's into 'FEEDBACK' state Anyways, I will keep testing and reporting on gdb_5_3-branch. My test bed role is separate from my loudmouth role. Michael C