Re: Time for a new release?

Re: Time for a new release?

[Joel Brobecker]

[moving the discussion to gdb (from gdb-patches) as recommended]

> > >        Branch: Apr 3rd
> > >        Pre-release: Apr 5th
> > >        Release: Apr 19th
> 
> Sounds reasonable to me.  I know I have a lot of things coming up
> that I don't want to sneak "under the wire" into a release - I'll
> want to give them a lot of time to settle down.

I have set some time aside to work on this today. Is Apr 3rd still
OK for cutting the branch?


> > >Basically, a first pre-release a couple of days after branching.
> > >And then the first release if all goes well two weeks after, to
> > >give us some time to flush any issue we might find.
> 
> This is a pretty aggressive schedule; if we want the release to receive
> broad testing, I recommend waiting a bit longer.

Would one month be a good duration? I think this is what we did the
last time.

> > >Also, do we want to distribute GDB with -Werror enabled? It's fair
> > >to have us build GDB with -Werror, but I would feel more comfortable
> > >distributing something that's easier to compiler for the end user.
> > >I think this will avoid some traffic from users who don't know what
> > >to do with the fatal warnings.
> 
> I agree.  Maybe some day it will be appropriate to ship GDB with
> -Werror, but I'd rather not do it immediately.

OK. Will post a patch to disable -Werror by default.

-- 
Joel

Re: Time for a new release?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:04:57AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> [moving the discussion to gdb (from gdb-patches) as recommended]
> 
> > > >        Branch: Apr 3rd
> > > >        Pre-release: Apr 5th
> > > >        Release: Apr 19th
> > 
> > Sounds reasonable to me.  I know I have a lot of things coming up
> > that I don't want to sneak "under the wire" into a release - I'll
> > want to give them a lot of time to settle down.
> 
> I have set some time aside to work on this today. Is Apr 3rd still
> OK for cutting the branch?

i.e. three days ago?  At this point, I'd recommend waiting a couple of
days; let's get David Miller's SPARC/Linux fixes in first.

> Would one month be a good duration? I think this is what we did the
> last time.

Yes, I think so.

> OK. Will post a patch to disable -Werror by default.

On the release branch, I hope you mean?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: Time for a new release?

[Joel Brobecker]

> > I have set some time aside to work on this today. Is Apr 3rd still
> > OK for cutting the branch?
> 
> i.e. three days ago?  At this point, I'd recommend waiting a couple of
> days; let's get David Miller's SPARC/Linux fixes in first.

Sure.

> > OK. Will post a patch to disable -Werror by default.
> 
> On the release branch, I hope you mean?

Of course!

Thanks for the feedback.
-- 
Joel

Re: Time for a new release?

[H. J. Lu]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:32:18AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:04:57AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > [moving the discussion to gdb (from gdb-patches) as recommended]
> > 
> > > > >        Branch: Apr 3rd
> > > > >        Pre-release: Apr 5th
> > > > >        Release: Apr 19th
> > > 
> > > Sounds reasonable to me.  I know I have a lot of things coming up
> > > that I don't want to sneak "under the wire" into a release - I'll
> > > want to give them a lot of time to settle down.
> > 
> > I have set some time aside to work on this today. Is Apr 3rd still
> > OK for cutting the branch?
> 
> i.e. three days ago?  At this point, I'd recommend waiting a couple of
> days; let's get David Miller's SPARC/Linux fixes in first.
> 
> > Would one month be a good duration? I think this is what we did the
> > last time.
> 
> Yes, I think so.
> 
> > OK. Will post a patch to disable -Werror by default.
> 
> On the release branch, I hope you mean?

How have we resolved "del 1"? It used to work. Now I have to use
"delete 1".


H.J.

Re: Time for a new release?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:49:27AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> How have we resolved "del 1"? It used to work. Now I have to use
> "delete 1".

I posted a message about it but no one has made any change yet.  Feel
free to post a patch.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: Time for a new release?

[Andreas Schwab]

"H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:

> How have we resolved "del 1"? It used to work. Now I have to use
> "delete 1".

You can still use "d 1".

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Time for a new release?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:32:18AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:04:57AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > [moving the discussion to gdb (from gdb-patches) as recommended]
> > 
> > > > >        Branch: Apr 3rd
> > > > >        Pre-release: Apr 5th
> > > > >        Release: Apr 19th
> > > 
> > > Sounds reasonable to me.  I know I have a lot of things coming up
> > > that I don't want to sneak "under the wire" into a release - I'll
> > > want to give them a lot of time to settle down.
> > 
> > I have set some time aside to work on this today. Is Apr 3rd still
> > OK for cutting the branch?
> 
> i.e. three days ago?  At this point, I'd recommend waiting a couple of
> days; let's get David Miller's SPARC/Linux fixes in first.

Obviously I didn't intend for that to take so long.  Sorry!  It's done
now.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: Time for a new release?

[Joel Brobecker]

> > i.e. three days ago?  At this point, I'd recommend waiting a couple of
> > days; let's get David Miller's SPARC/Linux fixes in first.
> 
> Obviously I didn't intend for that to take so long.  Sorry!  It's done
> now.

Thanks for the notification. I think it was worth the wait, so no
worries on my part. In fact, I see there is a modula-2 patch that's
very close to beiing checked it as well. Wouldn't it be worth waiting
for that too?

-- 
Joel