From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30263 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2009 15:54:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 30251 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Sep 2009 15:54:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:54:14 +0000 Received: from zps19.corp.google.com (zps19.corp.google.com [172.25.146.19]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n83FsBnb009571 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:54:11 -0700 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (ancc5.prod.google.com [10.100.29.5]) by zps19.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n83Fs9ZB021111 for ; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:54:09 -0700 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c5so11866anc.16 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:54:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.26.6 with SMTP id d6mr11016696anj.149.1251993249190; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:54:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090902164425.GR4379@adacore.com> References: <20090902164425.GR4379@adacore.com> Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: <8ac60eac0909030854j21d514f9h5047a099a3eb3d80@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [gdb-7.0 release] 2009-09-02 status and proposed plan From: Paul Pluzhnikov To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00043.txt.bz2 On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > If there are any issue that you know of that are *RELEASE-CRITICAL* > (build failure, regressions), please let us know, so we can decide > what to do, and possibly add it to the 7.0 TODO list. I think elimination of failing asserts: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-09/msg00062.html should be considered release blocking. I am hoping for a quick review :-) -- Paul Pluzhnikov