From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10485 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2005 02:38:45 -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 10286 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2005 02:38:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 22 Mar 2005 02:38:35 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1DDZI1-0005yz-TB; Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:38:42 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 02:38:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: Stan Shebs , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Product branches in the GDB repository? Message-ID: <20050322023841.GA22952@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Stan Shebs , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20050322002034.GA19385@nevyn.them.org> <423F68A3.3090703@apple.com> <16959.33075.606023.632089@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <16959.33075.606023.632089@farnswood.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00200.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 02:21:39PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > (Does that mean Apple GDB should get a branch here too? > > Interesting question...) In my opinion - absolutely yes. We might want a separate list for patches for non-FSF branches, though. Just to keep the development load sane. > In that case, do Apple intend to merge their changes with HEAD at some stage? > I am particularly interested in their changes to GDB/MI. I am under the impression that Apple has always wanted to do this, but is persistently short of the manpower to do it - just like everyone else in the world, they don't have enough hours in their day. I hope that, eventually, progress will be made! -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC