From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21705 invoked by alias); 26 Aug 2009 05:39:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 21636 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Aug 2009 05:39:24 -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) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 05:39:16 +0000 Received: from zps35.corp.google.com (zps35.corp.google.com [172.25.146.35]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n7Q5dAME018791 for ; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 06:39:12 +0100 Received: from ywh4 (ywh4.prod.google.com [10.192.8.4]) by zps35.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n7Q5cWAH020228 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:39:08 -0700 Received: by ywh4 with SMTP id 4so5530810ywh.17 for ; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:39:08 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.151.5.19 with SMTP id h19mr12139248ybi.67.1251265147694; Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:39:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090826024108.GB6540@adacore.com> References: <4A8C7EA8.4010808@vmware.com> <20090820022048.GD5319@adacore.com> <20090826024108.GB6540@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 16:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: when is gdb 6.9 being released? From: Doug Evans To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Michael Snyder , Anirban Sinha , "gdb@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2009-08/txt/msg00243.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> Can I suggest that a day be picked and announced at least two weeks in >> advance, so that folks with things they want in have some amount of >> time to finish the work. > > My 2 cents on this (others may disagree): I think we've delayed the > release enough that we should not add any additional delay. We have > identified a list of issues that we want to fix before branching, and > I suggest that we should feel free to branch as soon as these items are > resolved. Anything extra should not delay the 7.0 release. We can > certainly discuss individual contributions and decide whether they > should be made part of the 7.0 release, but anything else can wait for > the next release cycle, which we can make as early after 7.0 as we want. I don't understand. I wasn't asking for any delay, per se. You said "back in a week or two", and "cut the branch mid september". That's ~2 weeks away (that's, in part, why I picked two weeks). I'd just like to see the community get a definitive date to set expectations and help folks schedule their time (for those that it would help).