From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23167 invoked by alias); 22 Aug 2013 06:10:48 -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 23142 invoked by uid 89); 22 Aug 2013 06:10:47 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO smtp.eu.adacore.com) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:10:46 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52F61265D4F2; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:10:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.eu.adacore.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MPdb4BSJUxhd; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:10:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.13] (mtg95-3-82-238-192-125.fbx.proxad.net [82.238.192.125]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A0BB7265D4F3; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:10:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: A Proposal to Move to Git Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Tristan Gingold In-Reply-To: <20130821155007.GE5147@adacore.com> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 06:10:00 -0000 Cc: Steve Ellcey , Tom Tromey , GDB Development , Binutils Development Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <54018360-EBEC-4090-96F9-35F298C1F12F@adacore.com> References: <8738q4gj7a.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1377099478.5770.76.camel@ubuntu-sellcey> <20130821155007.GE5147@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 On Aug 21, 2013, at 5:50 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> 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. > > I think it should depend on when 2.24 is scheduled to be released. > 2.23 was released end of Oct 2012. Tristan, are you planning on > releasing 2.24 around that time as well? And what do you think of > the suggestion to wait for the release? IIRC, you were telling me > that a lot of the process was manual, so perhaps a switch to git > wouldn't impact you as much for producing the release? Yes, 2.24 should be released soon. But I'd prefer to use the same SCM for the 2.24.x releases, so I'd prefer to move to git before 2.24 (if this is possible). Tristan.