From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Release schedule
Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 09:37:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3CD2BCA8.3020308@cygnus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020430235610.A11126@nevyn.them.org>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2002 at 07:31:03PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>> >Which branches are CURRENT and NEXT coming from?
>
>>
>> Er, yes.
>>
>
>> >Is CURRENT going to be gdb 5.2.1 from gdb_5_2-branch,
>> >with NEXT coming from the trunk?
>> >
>> >I'm trying to get a feel for how active the 5.2 branch will be.
>
>>
>> My expectation is:
>> - 5.2.1 from 5.2 branch in ~1-2 months
>> - ``current'' would be the 5.3 branch, ~4 months
>> - ``next'' would be the 5.4/6.0 branch, ~8 months
>>
>> CURRENT NEXT
>
>> >Warning: Sun Jul 14 (2002-07-14-gmt) Sun Nov 10 (2002-11-10-gmt)
>> >Branch: Sun Jul 28 (2002-07-28-gmt) Sun Nov 24 (2002-11-24-gmt)
>> >Release: Sun Sep 1 (2002-09-01-gmt) Sun Dec 29 (2002-12-29-gmt)
>> >reSpin: Sun Oct 6 (2002-10-06-gmt) Sun Feb 2 (2003-02-02-gmt)
>
>>
>> However, given GDB has actually managed two releases in 6 months and a
>> recent thread on this list suggests GCC is considering slowing down to 8
>> month schedules, now is proably the time to ``re-negotiate'' GDB's
>> release schedule.
>
>
> Do we want to persue the 6.0 idea you mentioned earlier? Perhaps six
> months rather than four?
That would look like:
GDB is on a ~6 month (26 week) release cycle.
CURRENT NEXT
Warning: Sun Sep 15 (2002-09-15-gmt) Sun Mar 16 (2003-03-16-gmt)
Branch: Sun Sep 29 (2002-09-29-gmt) Sun Mar 30 (2003-03-30-gmt)
Release: Sun Nov 3 (2002-11-03-gmt) Sun May 4 (2003-05-04-gmt)
reSpin: Sun Dec 8 (2002-12-08-gmt) Sun Jun 8 (2003-06-08-gmt)
if the releases are too infrequent, the process of removing old code
gets slowed down a little (but I guess I can live with that).
Anyone else?
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-03 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-30 9:24 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2002-04-30 18:22 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-04-30 20:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-05-03 9:37 ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-04-30 8:04 Andrew Cagney
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=3CD2BCA8.3020308@cygnus.com \
--to=ac131313@cygnus.com \
--cc=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.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