From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
To: Nicholas Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>
Cc: Tristan Gingold <gingold@adacore.com>,
"binutils@sourceware.org" <binutils@sourceware.org>,
gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Synchronizing Binutils and GDB releases
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 16:09:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140818160906.GC4828@adacore.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <53F21C4B.4000109@redhat.com>
Hi Nick,
> The idea was raised at this year's GNU Tool's Cauldron. It would
> help users who manage combined toolchain sources. Currently if they
> want to create a combined tree of specific releases of the gcc, gdb
> and binutils they have to choose which version of the BFD library to
> use. But if they find a bug and want to check in a fix, they have to
> remember that there are actually two versions of the BFD sources to
> patch. Multiply this by a number of different GDB/BINUTILS release
> combintations and this becomes a maintenance headache.
I've been trying to think this through a little:
Binutil's schedule is roughly one release per year. GDB's schedule
is usually 2, but can depend on new features. I don't think that GDB
is thinking of changing the frequency of its releases, so unless
binutils switches to two releases a year, the two projects are not
even on the same schedule. And the release numbering is also different.
Also, finding a branchpoint for a release branch has never been easy
in the past, and having to now consider both binutils and gdb for
creating that branch is only going to make things harder either by
delaying the branching, or by creating more backports.
I think that it would be an extra burden for both projects, and
at the same time, I am not sure I am seeing how it would still
be beneficial for both binutils and GDB to be adoption these
shared release branches. Maybe it's because I don't see why using
a combined tree is making things any different?
--
Joel
prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-18 16:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-18 15:31 Nicholas Clifton
2014-08-18 15:42 ` Joel Sherrill
2014-08-18 16:09 ` Joel Brobecker [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140818160906.GC4828@adacore.com \
--to=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=gingold@adacore.com \
--cc=nickc@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox