re: gdb 6.4

re: gdb 6.4

[Paul Schlie]

Sounds good (as it would likely help more than hurt)

gdb 6.4

[Andrew Cagney]

Per recent posts, gdb 6.3 doesn't build on systems that don't have intl/ 
unless --disable-nls is explicitly specified.

Rather than re-spin 6.3, I intend doing a short sharp 6.4.  Several 
factors contribute to this:

- GDB switched to autoconf 2.59, we need exposure
- right now is a good time to pause in the dw_op_piece work
(yes that means dw_op_piece is in 6.5)
- I think i18n can be covered in a timely fashion before the branch/release

I'll be spending the next week ensuring that the patch backlog is 
drained (I've 260 gdb-patches@ and 80 gdb@ e-mails to clear).

comments,
Andrew

Re: gdb 6.4

[Bob Rossi]

> I'll be spending the next week ensuring that the patch backlog is 
> drained (I've 260 gdb-patches@ and 80 gdb@ e-mails to clear).

Maybe faster release's is the answer to faster patch review.

Bob Rossi

RE: gdb 6.4

[Dave Korn]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gdb-owner On Behalf Of Bob Rossi
> Sent: 09 February 2005 14:03
> To: Andrew Cagney
> Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: gdb 6.4
> 
> > I'll be spending the next week ensuring that the patch backlog is 
> > drained (I've 260 gdb-patches@ and 80 gdb@ e-mails to clear).
> 
> Maybe faster release's is the answer to faster patch review.
> 
> Bob Rossi


  I don't see how that could be possible.  More frequent releases == more time
spent packaging them == less time available to spend reviewing patches == slower
progress on the code, doesn't it?


    cheers, 
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
 

Re: gdb 6.4

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 08:54:37AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Per recent posts, gdb 6.3 doesn't build on systems that don't have intl/ 
> unless --disable-nls is explicitly specified.
> 
> Rather than re-spin 6.3, I intend doing a short sharp 6.4.  Several 
> factors contribute to this:
> 
> - GDB switched to autoconf 2.59, we need exposure
> - right now is a good time to pause in the dw_op_piece work
> (yes that means dw_op_piece is in 6.5)
> - I think i18n can be covered in a timely fashion before the branch/release
> 
> I'll be spending the next week ensuring that the patch backlog is 
> drained (I've 260 gdb-patches@ and 80 gdb@ e-mails to clear).

My feeling is that this will push 6.5 back a ways, and your original
motivations for pulling DW_OP_piece support into 6.4 are still valid -
GCC is now aiming at a release date of April 15.

But you're the one doing all the relevant work, so it's certainly up to
you!

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Re: gdb 6.4

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:54:37 -0500
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> 
> - I think i18n can be covered in a timely fashion before the branch/release

Sorry, I don't understand what that means -- can you explain?

Re: gdb 6.4

[Andrew Cagney]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:54:37 -0500
>>From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
>>
>>- I think i18n can be covered in a timely fashion before the branch/release
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand what that means -- can you explain?

I think i18n [markup] can be covered in a timely fashion before the 
branch/release.

Andrew

Re: gdb 6.4

[Eli Zaretskii]

> Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 17:53:54 -0500
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
> 
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >>Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 08:54:37 -0500
> >>From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> >>
> >>- I think i18n can be covered in a timely fashion before the branch/release
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry, I don't understand what that means -- can you explain?
> 
> I think i18n [markup] can be covered in a timely fashion before the 
> branch/release.

Do you mean that we will release GDB 6.4 with the i18n markup, but
without a message catalog and without translations?  That doesn't seem
to be very wise, I think.