|
List Info
Thread: Time for a new release?
|
|
| Time for a new release? |

|
2006-04-06 15:04:57 |
[moving the discussion to gdb (from gdb-patches) as
recommended]
> > > Branch: Apr 3rd
> > > Pre-release: Apr 5th
> > > Release: Apr 19th
>
> Sounds reasonable to me. I know I have a lot of things
coming up
> that I don't want to sneak "under the
wire" into a release - I'll
> want to give them a lot of time to settle down.
I have set some time aside to work on this today. Is Apr 3rd
still
OK for cutting the branch?
> > >Basically, a first pre-release a couple of
days after branching.
> > >And then the first release if all goes well
two weeks after, to
> > >give us some time to flush any issue we might
find.
>
> This is a pretty aggressive schedule; if we want the
release to receive
> broad testing, I recommend waiting a bit longer.
Would one month be a good duration? I think this is what we
did the
last time.
> > >Also, do we want to distribute GDB with
-Werror enabled? It's fair
> > >to have us build GDB with -Werror, but I would
feel more comfortable
> > >distributing something that's easier to
compiler for the end user.
> > >I think this will avoid some traffic from
users who don't know what
> > >to do with the fatal warnings.
>
> I agree. Maybe some day it will be appropriate to ship
GDB with
> -Werror, but I'd rather not do it immediately.
OK. Will post a patch to disable -Werror by default.
--
Joel
|
|
| Time for a new release? |

|
2006-04-06 15:32:18 |
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:04:57AM -0700, Joel Brobecker
wrote:
> [moving the discussion to gdb (from gdb-patches) as
recommended]
>
> > > > Branch: Apr 3rd
> > > > Pre-release: Apr 5th
> > > > Release: Apr 19th
> >
> > Sounds reasonable to me. I know I have a lot of
things coming up
> > that I don't want to sneak "under the
wire" into a release - I'll
> > want to give them a lot of time to settle down.
>
> I have set some time aside to work on this today. Is
Apr 3rd still
> OK for cutting the branch?
i.e. three days ago? At this point, I'd recommend waiting
a couple of
days; let's get David Miller's SPARC/Linux fixes in first.
> Would one month be a good duration? I think this is
what we did the
> last time.
Yes, I think so.
> OK. Will post a patch to disable -Werror by default.
On the release branch, I hope you mean?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
|
|
| Time for a new release? |

|
2006-04-06 15:35:24 |
> > I have set some time aside to work on this today.
Is Apr 3rd still
> > OK for cutting the branch?
>
> i.e. three days ago? At this point, I'd recommend
waiting a couple of
> days; let's get David Miller's SPARC/Linux fixes in
first.
Sure.
> > OK. Will post a patch to disable -Werror by
default.
>
> On the release branch, I hope you mean?
Of course!
Thanks for the feedback.
--
Joel
|
|
| Time for a new release? |

|
2006-04-06 15:49:27 |
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:32:18AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:04:57AM -0700, Joel
Brobecker wrote:
> > [moving the discussion to gdb (from gdb-patches)
as recommended]
> >
> > > > > Branch: Apr 3rd
> > > > > Pre-release: Apr 5th
> > > > > Release: Apr 19th
> > >
> > > Sounds reasonable to me. I know I have a lot
of things coming up
> > > that I don't want to sneak "under the
wire" into a release - I'll
> > > want to give them a lot of time to settle
down.
> >
> > I have set some time aside to work on this today.
Is Apr 3rd still
> > OK for cutting the branch?
>
> i.e. three days ago? At this point, I'd recommend
waiting a couple of
> days; let's get David Miller's SPARC/Linux fixes in
first.
>
> > Would one month be a good duration? I think this
is what we did the
> > last time.
>
> Yes, I think so.
>
> > OK. Will post a patch to disable -Werror by
default.
>
> On the release branch, I hope you mean?
How have we resolved "del 1"? It used to work.
Now I have to use
"delete 1".
H.J.
|
|
| Time for a new release? |

|
2006-04-06 15:52:47 |
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:49:27AM -0700, H. J. Lu wrote:
> How have we resolved "del 1"? It used to
work. Now I have to use
> "delete 1".
I posted a message about it but no one has made any change
yet. Feel
free to post a patch.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
|
|
| Time for a new release? |

|
2006-04-06 15:56:22 |
"H. J. Lu" <hjl lucon.org> writes:
> How have we resolved "del 1"? It used to
work. Now I have to use
> "delete 1".
You can still use "d 1".
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg,
Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5
214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
|
|
| Time for a new release? |

|
2006-05-07 22:30:16 |
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:32:18AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 08:04:57AM -0700, Joel
Brobecker wrote:
> > [moving the discussion to gdb (from gdb-patches)
as recommended]
> >
> > > > > Branch: Apr 3rd
> > > > > Pre-release: Apr 5th
> > > > > Release: Apr 19th
> > >
> > > Sounds reasonable to me. I know I have a lot
of things coming up
> > > that I don't want to sneak "under the
wire" into a release - I'll
> > > want to give them a lot of time to settle
down.
> >
> > I have set some time aside to work on this today.
Is Apr 3rd still
> > OK for cutting the branch?
>
> i.e. three days ago? At this point, I'd recommend
waiting a couple of
> days; let's get David Miller's SPARC/Linux fixes in
first.
Obviously I didn't intend for that to take so long. Sorry!
It's done
now.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
|
|
| Time for a new release? |

|
2006-05-08 16:56:55 |
> > i.e. three days ago? At this point, I'd
recommend waiting a couple of
> > days; let's get David Miller's SPARC/Linux fixes
in first.
>
> Obviously I didn't intend for that to take so long.
Sorry! It's done
> now.
Thanks for the notification. I think it was worth the wait,
so no
worries on my part. In fact, I see there is a modula-2 patch
that's
very close to beiing checked it as well. Wouldn't it be
worth waiting
for that too?
--
Joel
|
|
[1-8]
|
|
|
about | contact Other archives ( Real Estate discussion Medical topics )
|