Re: GDB 5.1.1 scheduled 00:00 24 Jan 2002 GMT

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>]

> Incidentally, this also touches on a style nit of mine that I've
> talked to Andrew about in the past in direct mail, but I'm strongly
> opposed to encoding dates in the branch names.  The thinking behind
> gdb-5_1-20010914-branch (or whatever it was) is that you can guess
> when the sources were branched off the trunk.  If that's an important
> piece of information, encode it in the branchpoint tag
> (gdb-5_1-2001-09-14-branchpoint) which people rarely have to type
> on their own, and call the branch something sensible like
> gdb-5_1-branch.  By encoding the date in the branch tag, which
> people have to use often, you make them remember arbitrary information
> which doesn't disambiguate anything.  I can check out a copy of
> the gcc 3.0 branch without looking at a single web page, without
> checking a single tag list -- any reasonable person can guess what
> it will look like.  No reasonable person can guess what the gdb
> 5.1 branch name might be.  You could just as easily include a few
> bytes of /dev/random in there for all it does.


BTW, the how-to-release doco hints at this.  Would you like me to expand 
a little including the above?

BTW, other side is that the tag includes the date so it is easy to find 
exactly when that tag was created (something CVS is really bad at).

enjoy,
Andrew