From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26788 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2013 14:16:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 26770 invoked by uid 89); 22 Aug 2013 14:16:26 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from service87.mimecast.com (HELO service87.mimecast.com) (91.220.42.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:16:25 +0000 Received: from cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.21]) by service87.mimecast.com; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:16:22 +0100 Received: from [10.1.208.33] ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa1.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:16:19 +0100 Message-ID: <52161D32.3090604@arm.com> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:16:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steve Ellcey CC: Tom Tromey , GDB Development , Binutils Development Subject: Re: A Proposal to Move to Git References: <8738q4gj7a.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1377099478.5770.76.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> In-Reply-To: <1377099478.5770.76.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> X-MC-Unique: 113082215162205101 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00097.txt.bz2 On 21/08/13 16:37, Steve Ellcey wrote: > On Tue, 2013-08-20 at 15:12 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: >=20 >> I'd like to do the final switch around mid-September. Not sooner, >> because I am going to be away for a little while near the end of >> August, and I want to be available to fix problems. >> >> Tom >=20 > There was a comment on the gdb list about releasing GDB 7.7 before the > transition, I wonder if it would make sense to release a Binutils 2.24 > as well? In general, I am in favor of the transition and I don't think > doing (or not doing) a binutils 2.24 release should be a blocker for the > move to git, but I wouldn't mind seeing a new release before the > transition. If you switch after the releases have been made you also need to consider how you'll handle 'dot' releases should they be necessary. Are they going to come from the CVS source base and then be re-imported into GIT? Or, are you going to use a different process to handle them from that used to produce the main release? R.