GDB 5.2 et.al. release schedule

GDB 5.2 et.al. release schedule

[Andrew Cagney]

See also: http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html

There have been plenty of concerns raised about the unreliability of the 
GDB release cycle: 12 months, 18 months, ... I'm looking for more robust 
ways of addressing this.  (btw the 5.2 release manager role is still 
available) (I promise not to break an arm again :-).

In previous e-mail I've mentioned the intention to branch 5.2 mid Feb 
and release it mid March.

With those two points in mind, and looking across at GCC for idea's, I'd 
like to propose that GDB have a more formal release schedule.

I should note that GDB 5.1 established a new precident - it was released 
with several targets (HP/UX, ALPHA) known to be broken.  Being willing 
to do this greatly simplified the task of the release person as they 
should no longer feel guilty when documenting that certain 
targets/natives just don't work.

GCC's cycle is every 6 months.  GDB could go for 12, 6, 4, or 3 months. 
  In the below I've somewhat arbitrarially chosen 4 months.  That would 
give three major and (possibly) three minor releases a year.

01 Jan - 5.1.1
02 Feb - branch (5.2)
03 Mar - release (5.2)
04 Apr
05 May - 5.2.x?
06 Jun - branch (5.3)
07 Jul - release (5.3)
08 Aug
09 Sep - 5.3.x?
10 Oct - branch (5.4)
11 Nov - release (5.4)
12 Dec
.
.
.

Oh, I'm never going to do a sub-sub release again.  As I've now learnt, 
they end up wasteing everyones time.  Instead, respins will always come 
from the head but may need to occure with little notice.

Looking at other release cycles, a 6 month schedule would better tie in 
with GCC.  While I'm open to opinion, my gut feeing is that the GCC 
release schedule/model really don't map well onto GDB.  GDB is far more 
of an iterative development model and as such should encourage more 
frequent releases.

Another is a 3 month schedule, ulgh.

comments, thoughts, suggestions etc,
Andrew

PS: If this is agreed to, I'll add it to cron so that no one can forget :-)

Re: GDB 5.2 et.al. release schedule

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 03:52:26PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> See also: http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
> 
> There have been plenty of concerns raised about the unreliability of the 
> GDB release cycle: 12 months, 18 months, ... I'm looking for more robust 
> ways of addressing this.  (btw the 5.2 release manager role is still 
> available) (I promise not to break an arm again :-).
> 
> In previous e-mail I've mentioned the intention to branch 5.2 mid Feb 
> and release it mid March.
> 
> With those two points in mind, and looking across at GCC for idea's, I'd 
> like to propose that GDB have a more formal release schedule.
> 
> I should note that GDB 5.1 established a new precident - it was released 
> with several targets (HP/UX, ALPHA) known to be broken.  Being willing 
> to do this greatly simplified the task of the release person as they 
> should no longer feel guilty when documenting that certain 
> targets/natives just don't work.
> 
> GCC's cycle is every 6 months.  GDB could go for 12, 6, 4, or 3 months. 
>  In the below I've somewhat arbitrarially chosen 4 months.  That would 
> give three major and (possibly) three minor releases a year.

I like it.  And I agree with your comments about the iterative
development process.

> Looking at other release cycles, a 6 month schedule would better tie in 
> with GCC.  While I'm open to opinion, my gut feeing is that the GCC 
> release schedule/model really don't map well onto GDB.  GDB is far more 
> of an iterative development model and as such should encourage more 
> frequent releases.

And we don't need to be tied to GCC.

> PS: If this is agreed to, I'll add it to cron so that no one can forget :-)

The possibilities are alarming...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: GDB 5.2 et.al. release schedule

[Andrew Cagney]

> See also: http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html
> 
> There have been plenty of concerns raised about the unreliability of the GDB release cycle: 12 months, 18 months, ... I'm looking for more robust ways of addressing this.  (btw the 5.2 release manager role is still available) (I promise not to break an arm again :-).


(I've had a very welcome expression of interest for the release role).


> In previous e-mail I've mentioned the intention to branch 5.2 mid Feb and release it mid March.
> 
> With those two points in mind, and looking across at GCC for idea's, I'd like to propose that GDB have a more formal release schedule.
> 
> I should note that GDB 5.1 established a new precident - it was released with several targets (HP/UX, ALPHA) known to be broken.  Being willing to do this greatly simplified the task of the release person as they should no longer feel guilty when documenting that certain targets/natives just don't work.
> 
> GCC's cycle is every 6 months.  GDB could go for 12, 6, 4, or 3 months.  In the below I've somewhat arbitrarially chosen 4 months.  That would give three major and (possibly) three minor releases a year.
> 
> 01 Jan - 5.1.1
> 02 Feb - branch (5.2)
> 03 Mar - release (5.2)
> 04 Apr
> 05 May - 5.2.x?
> 06 Jun - branch (5.3)
> 07 Jul - release (5.3)
> 08 Aug
> 09 Sep - 5.3.x?
> 10 Oct - branch (5.4)
> 11 Nov - release (5.4)
> 12 Dec


No objections (I guess everyone knows it is me that gets to do this). 
I've added cronjobs to send out reminders of the branch and release 
dates.  The branch reminder (branch in two weeks) should appear in about 
a week.

Andrew