From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10685 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2010 09:02:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 10677 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Nov 2010 09:02:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f43.google.com) (74.125.82.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:02:41 +0000 Received: by wwb39 with SMTP id 39so5195614wwb.12 for ; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.163.203 with SMTP id a53mr7730162wel.94.1288602158778; Mon, 01 Nov 2010 02:02:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.182.139 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Nov 2010 02:02:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20101028024958.GB2757@adacore.com> From: Hui Zhu Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2010 09:02:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: GDB 7.2.1 release? To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2010-11/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 And: http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gdb/tracepoint.c.diff?cvsroot= =3Dsrc&r1=3D1.196&r2=3D1.197 Thanks, Hui On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:44, Hui Zhu wrote: > Suggest these 2 bug fixes for tracepoint: > > http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gdb/tracepoint.c.diff?cvsroo= t=3Dsrc&r1=3D1.194&r2=3D1.195 > http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gdb/tracepoint.c.diff?cvsroo= t=3Dsrc&r1=3D1.195&r2=3D1.196 > > Thanks, > Hui > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:49, Joel Brobecker wro= te: >> Hello everyone, >> >> It's time to ask ourselves whether we want to make a minor release off >> of the 7.2 branch. According to the tentative schedule, we were planning >> on making it around 3 months after the 7.2 release, which would be Dec 2= nd. >> >> First, I would like to determine which changes we've made that should go >> in the branch. So far, we have 3 changes, but there are probably more >> changes that could go in the branch... >> >> Please let us know if you are aware of any such change. >> >> Thanks! >> -- >> Joel >> >> PS: I chose 3 months because I try to aim for 2 major releases a year, >> =A0 =A0and having a .1 release after 3 months splits the 6 months period >> =A0 =A0in 2. It's not a strong reason, just a semi-abitrary guideline, >> =A0 =A0and we can either make it earlier or later depending on the issues >> =A0 =A0that we find in the latest release. >> >