From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20280 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2002 00:38:22 -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 20252 invoked from network); 10 Jan 2002 00:38:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.cygnus.com) (24.114.42.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jan 2002 00:38:22 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.cygnus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C0333CC9; Wed, 9 Jan 2002 19:17:31 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C3CDD9B.30205@cygnus.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 16:38:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20020103 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB 5.2 or GDB 5.1.1? References: <3C3CBCB8.90401@redhat.com> <20020109182054.B16868@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 > On Wed, Jan 09, 2002 at 04:57:12PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I'm looking over all the things in my 5.1.1 folder and am beginning to >> think that it might be better if instead just move onto 5.2. I really >> don't know if it is worth all the effort (well mine and a few others) of >> pulling those changes onto a branch. All the C++ fixes, the HP/UX host >> stuff and so on. >> >> For this to work, all the proposed release criteria for 5.2 would need >> to be droped. >> >> thoughts? >> >> Either way, there needs to be a decision by the middle of next week. > > > Well, we got GCC 3.0 ABI support off the New features list. ObjC/C++ > would push us back a long ways, and I don't remember what the > complications with readline4.2 were. There is also multi-arching all the targets. I should probably note that even if I didn't propose this I would have probably scrubbed the 5.2 list clean. > I wouldn't be averse to a quick 5.2 release from the trunk, otherwise. > There's a few things it would be nice to have done first - I have more > C++ fixes, and the profiling patch has not AFAICR been committed yet. > But there should be time. Ah, sooner than that :-) A best case senario puts the schedule at: announce branch 2002-01-16; branch 2002-01-23; release 2002-02-06. People have often said that GDB should be released more often. Looks like it might happen. enjoy, Andrew