From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1211 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2009 19:28:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 1056 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Sep 2009 19:28:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:28:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n82JQUfv003667; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:26:31 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n82JQUVC008469; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:26:30 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n82JQS1N019363; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 15:26:29 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 17E09378242; Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:26:28 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [gdb-7.0 release] 2009-09-02 status and proposed plan References: <20090902164425.GR4379@adacore.com> Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:28:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090902164425.GR4379@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Wed, 2 Sep 2009 09:44:25 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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/msg00026.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Joel> (b) Rename the python-support files to be 8.3-compliant. Joel> I thought that the change had been approved, but I see that Joel> the change has not been made. Has it been approved? If yes, Joel> it is being held up because we don't know how to best rename Joel> files without disturbing git? I'm ok with the simple rm + add approach. This has the advantage of not requiring anybody to log into sourceware and monkey around with the repository. One thing that has factored into my thinking here is that there have not been many revisions to these files in gdb CVS. So, trying to preserve the history in a super-convenient form is not extremely important. On the off chance that somebody needs the older history they can just "cvs log" the old file names. Joel> (c) varobj support for Python pretty-printing Joel> Tom gave a quick status on IRC yesterday. It sounds like Joel> there isn't much left to do. Perhaps a quick update on the Wiki Joel> page to state exactly what's left would be nice. Unless fixing Joel> the last thing or two might be faster ;-). There's one more bug. Of course, there's only been one more bug for the last 4 weeks :-( I plan to do the work to merge this to trunk this week. Joel> (f) bug in breakpoint commands: commands not evaluated outside of Joel> main command loop. Joel> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-07/msg00583.html Joel> There is a suggested patch, but needs looking at. Any taker? There are a number of other unreviewed patches. I can try to make a list if that would be helpful. I would like us to commit to reviewing all patches that arrived before some cutoff date before the release. I think this is important to encourage continued contributions to GDB. Also, I consider this part of our duty as maintainers. I don't have a proposal for when this cutoff should be, but I think it should be in the future. (It could be the very near future.) Joel> If there are any issue that you know of that are *RELEASE-CRITICAL* Joel> (build failure, regressions), please let us know I have a couple more, I'm afraid. I think the "Fix Darwin breakage" and "Speed up find_pc_section" threads need to reach some sort of resolution. I haven't caught up on these yet, so maybe these are already concluded. Finally, I think we should get the DW_OP_*_value patch in. This patch is needed with GCC svn trunk, now that VTA has gone in. (I'm working on the final bit of this patch: the test cases.) Joel> In terms of dates, I would like us to try to release sooner rather than Joel> later. Can I suggest we try to shoot for Wed Sep 9th for the branch date, Joel> and then try to release a couple of weeks after (that would be the 23rd)? It seems possible, at least if people step up for the remaining tasks. Joel> Also, it sounds like a lot more new features are currently being Joel> developed, and people are trying to make it for 7.0. I propose to Joel> release 7.1 not too long after 7.0: Instead of waiting 6 months, Joel> we could release around end of January, early Feb (say: branch mid Joel> Jan, release end of Jan). I think that would be a good idea. Tom