Re: More code code dropping

[David Relson <relson@osagesoftware.com>]

At 10:54 AM 12/8/01, you wrote:
>On Dec 8,  3:15am, Paul Hilfinger wrote:
>
> > I thought that a diff against the gdb 5.0 release
> > was probably most useful.  Andrew had suggested a patch against the
> > latest, bleeding-edge changes.  Since the idea of a diff is to give the
> > curious some idea of our changes, it seemed to me that the latter diff 
> would
> > show mostly undoings of more recent changes to GDB.  If anyone else out
> > there has an opinion on this subject, I'd like to hear it.
>
>I think it depends upon what you want.  Personally, I'd be interested
>in seeing a patch that shows the changes that ACT has made.  So the
>best candidate for diffing against would be the version of GDB that
>you merged with in your most recent merge.
>
>OTOH, a patch against the bleeding edge sources gives us a method of
>obtaining your source tree.  Personally, I think it'd just be better
>for you to drop a tarball someplace if this is what's desired.
>
>As I think about it now, I think a tarball is probably the best
>approach anyway.  That, along with a pointer to the version of
>GDB that you merged against should allow those interested to
>do their own diffs in whatever why they want...
>
>Kevin

My vote would be for a tarball of the ACT version PLUS the diff.  The 
tarball would allow rebuilding of the executable, for those who want to do 
that.  The diff would allow the changes to be viewed and would allow the 
changes to be applied to (merged with) the latest version of gdb.

David