From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12880 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2004 18:15:18 -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 12872 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2004 18:15:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.129.200.20) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Jan 2004 18:15:16 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2D32B8F; Thu, 8 Jan 2004 13:15:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FFD9E34.3020906@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 18:15:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB 6.1 branch end jan? References: <3FFC98E8.8010001@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2 PS: I need to remember to include the following information in this initial post. I always seem to receive a slew of private e-mails asking if some yet to be contributed/announced "port" (architecture or system) can be squeesed into the next release. Per: http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdbint_15.html#SEC132 -- 15.2 Branch Commit Policy The branch commit policy is pretty slack. GDB releases 5.0, 5.1 and 5.2 all used the below: * The `gdb/MAINTAINERS' file still holds. * Don't fix something on the branch unless/until it is also fixed in the trunk. If this isn't possible, mentioning it in the `gdb/PROBLEMS' file is better than committing a hack. * When considering a patch for the branch, suggested criteria include: Does it fix a build? Does it fix the sequence break main; run when debugging a static binary? * The further a change is from the core of GDB, the less likely the change will worry anyone (e.g., target specific code). * Only post a proposal to change the core of GDB after you've sent individual bribes to all the people listed in the `MAINTAINERS' file ;-) Pragmatics: Provided updates are restricted to non-core functionality there is little chance that a broken change will be fatal. This means that changes such as adding a new architectures or (within reason) support for a new host are considered acceptable. -- I should also note that with 6.0, significant flexability was afforded to people trying to frame-ify their architecture. Andrew