Re: Preparing for the GDB 5.0 / GDB 2000 / GDB2k release

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

"H . J . Lu" wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2000 at 12:46:56PM -0500, Jim Kingdon wrote:
> >
> > I mean, if we want to delay GDB 5.0 until after things have settled
> > down a bit, that might be OK, but I guess speaking for myself I'd be
> > happy to get 5.0 out quickly and then get started on 5.1.
> 
> If we do so, we have to explain it to those contributors and we
> have to fix it in 5.1 in a month or so, not 6 months or a year.
> Should we set a deadline for each bug where a working, but not
> ideal, patch exists? If we cannot find a better one before certain
> date, we will use the existing one.

If you count the months, July is less than 6 months away.  I've already
indicated that 5.1 is expected in that time frame.

With that said, I would consider a one month gap between 5.0 and 5.1 to
be unrealistic. I'd also consider it un-reasonable to mandate the
acceptance of patches just because a reasonable solution isn't
available.  It's important to remember that the person submitting the
quick-hack isn't the one that is going to be responsible for the long
term maintenance that that hack creates.

Any way, once 5.0 has been released, patches to any deadly serious bugs
(read core-dumps) are likely to be appended to the end of the 5.0 CVS
branch.  Someone wanting a 5.0 with fixes can then use a mechanism like
CVS update to obtain the fixes.  There is a very very small chance that
a 5.0.1 is needed (previous experience suggests that this is unlikely)
and far greater benefit can be had by ensuring the next major release is
made in a timely fashon.

	enjoy,
		Andrew