Re: [gdb-7.0 release] 2009-09-02 status and proposed plan

Joel Brobecker
2009-09-03T19:26:17Z

> Joel> (b) Rename the python-support files to be 8.3-compliant.
[...]
> I'm ok with the simple rm + add approach.

I agree. Let's apply the patch ASAP. Do you happen to have a rebased
version of the patch somewhere in archer, by any chance? Otherwise,
I'll try to contact Thiago to get the latest version and work from
there.

> There are a number of other unreviewed patches. I can try to make a
> list if that would be helpful.

I think it would. We need to draw our attention to everything that
needs to be done before branching.

> I would like us to commit to reviewing all patches that arrived before
> some cutoff date before the release. I think this is important to
> encourage continued contributions to GDB. Also, I consider this part
> of our duty as maintainers.

I would agree with that, but it means that we need to firmly commit
to the release. I'm available, but if it's just two or three of us,
this is just going to be too much work. I understand that someone
might be disappointed that his patch does not make the next release,
but should we really delay this further for things like minor enhancements
for instance?

I propose the following approach: Let's commit to reviewing promptly
all patches that are posted before branch time. Patches that are safe
for the branch will be added and part of the 7.0.1 release. Others
should not be checked in at such a late stage anyway (IMO). What do
you think?

> I think the "Fix Darwin breakage" and "Speed up find_pc_section" threads
> need to reach some sort of resolution. I haven't caught up on these
> yet, so maybe these are already concluded.

OK - I added these two to the wiki page. I have completely zapped most
threads while I was away. Would you mind posting URLs to these
discussions for me?

> Finally, I think we should get the DW_OP_*_value patch in. This patch
> is needed with GCC svn trunk, now that VTA has gone in. (I'm working on
> the final bit of this patch: the test cases.)

I see that you posted the patch (as an RFC. I will take a look, although
I'm not very familiar with this area). Perhaps we could coerce Daniel
to give his opinion on this?

> It seems possible, at least if people step up for the remaining tasks.

Yeah, that's the problem. On the couple of issues that I pointed out,
no one really stepped up to the plate :-(. I'll take a look at frame
assertion failure with gdbserver, but it'd be nice to get some help
fixing the rest.

--
Joel