From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21176 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2004 18:04:02 -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 21150 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2004 18:04:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO blount.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.226) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Apr 2004 18:04:01 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by blount.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1BEBDT-0005QL-00; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:03:59 -0400 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id B5AC84B104; Thu, 15 Apr 2004 14:03:55 -0400 (EDT) To: gdb@sources.redhat.com, manjo@austin.ibm.com Subject: Re: mainline vs 6.1 tree Message-Id: <20040415180355.B5AC84B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 03:21:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 Manjo> I was wondering if the patches/fixes done to mainline tree ever Manjo> make it into the 6.1 tree? How does it work? A developer who commits a patch to cvs HEAD might commit it to cvs gdb_6_1-branch at the same time. Many patches get applied this way before the release of 6.1. After the release of 6.1, very few patches get applied this way. Or, a developer might pick up patches that are already in cvs HEAD and apply them by hand to gdb_6_1-banch. This is called 'backporting'. You can look at the ChangeLog files in gdb_6_1-branch to see how much activity there has been. Michael C