This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Release 2.24
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>, binutils at sourceware dot org, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 05:20:28 -0700
- Subject: Re: Release 2.24
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <2741C968-721F-46E9-A2BA-E4B0F64C444B at adacore dot com> <BB32BE2A-A3CC-494C-9FB2-CFD322F49EA3 at adacore dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1309182134580 dot 4379 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk> <20130918213245 dot GO3132 at adacore dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 1 dot 10 dot 1309182238430 dot 4379 at tp dot orcam dot me dot uk>
> I reckon the original plan was to make the steps in the reverse order so
> that there's no pressure from outstanding releases to get the GIT tree in
> order, which I found reasonable -- what was the rationale behind changing
> the plan? It has somehow escaped me (a list archive reference will do).
Pretty much everyone who answered felt that it was more work to keep
two systems around for the duration of the branch. In GDB, branches
are active for about 6 months, which is a long time, and for Binutils,
it is 1 year, I believe. I was the only one who initially did not want
to tie the 2 together, but I changed my mind, and decided to wait
a bit, and give the full-git approach a shot.