From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25138 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2003 19:59:53 -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 25131 invoked from network); 6 Oct 2003 19:59:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Oct 2003 19:59:52 -0000 Received: from duracef.shout.net (duracef.shout.net [204.253.184.12]) by concert.shout.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h96JsfOm027130; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:54:42 -0500 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h96JsfVd008509; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 14:54:41 -0500 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id h96JsfCP008508; Mon, 6 Oct 2003 15:54:41 -0400 Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2003 19:59:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200310061954.h96JsfCP008508@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB schedule. X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 My comments: I will keep testing and reporting on the branch while we come to a decision. gdb HEAD has some regressions versus gdb 6.0, especially with C++. In the near future, I'm going to do a "HEAD versus 6.0" report so that people can work on them. I think the regression bugs in gdb HEAD are small enough that we can fix them all in time to cut a branch in January, but that is just informal. We do have to fix these bugs anyways. I'm not qualified to say whether there are any big projects in progress that won't finish by January. I would rather skip gdb 6.0.1 unless something happens in the field that mandates it. Less work on the branch => more resources for HEAD. Michael C