From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9700 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2002 20:52:27 -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 9668 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2002 20:52:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.cygnus.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2002 20:52:26 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.cygnus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1A493D48; Thu, 17 Jan 2002 15:52:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C473989.4090601@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 12:52:00 -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: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB 5.2 or GDB 5.1.1? References: <3C3CBCB8.90401@redhat.com> <3C43B0FF.9000506@cygnus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 > 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. > > > Just a postscript to this. Because the FSF would like to be able to spin out a manual based on a current release but are currently fixing things I'll very likely end up spinning out a 5.1.1 or 5.1.0.2 (ulgh) anyway. The latter is far far easier. > > However I do still have a preference for cutting 5.2 rather than spend lots of effort getting fixes into the 5.1 branch. > > I guess the question I'm asking here is, how much stuff has been added to the 5.1 branch that might break things making a fast 5.1.1 a high risk activity. For lack of opinion other than Daniel (thanks for the comments). I'm going to: Roll out 5.1.1 on ~24rd of Jan GMT (~23 in US). I need to do something to address the (C) issues and I think this has the greatest benefit. Please don't rush to put things onto that branch. Branch 5.2 ~23 Feb Release 5.2 ~23 Mar -- The numbers aren't totally made up. 5.1 was branched July and released November (4 months). The above cuts the branch life down to one month so ... Andrew