This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: ["patch"/doc] GDB version and branch names
- From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- To: ac131313 at cygnus dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 22:01:55 +0200
- Subject: Re: ["patch"/doc] GDB version and branch names
- References: <3C86CC4E.6050801@cygnus.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 21:11:26 -0500
> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
>
> @value{GDBN}'s mainline uses only dates to differentiate between
> versions. The CVS repository uses @file{YYYY-MM-DD-cvs} while
> corresponding snapshots use @file{YYYYMMDD}.
I suggest to use @var{yyyy}, @var{mm}, etc., since these strings
really stand for something else.
> To avoid confusion between the main-line, @value{GDBN}'s release branches
> use a more complex version naming scheme. The schema assumes that a
> series of releases, starting with a major.minor and possibly followed by a
> number of major.minor.minor releases are all to be drawn from a single
> branch.
Same here with `minor' and `major'.
> major.minor (@file{m.n}) identification with a @file{.90} suffix
and with `m.n'.
> The following a example illustrates this sequence using @file{5.1} as
That "a" should be removed.
> @file{gdb-5.1.93.tar.bz2} is just the @file{gdb-5.2.tar} file renamed an
> compressed.
Should be "and", not "an", I think.
Finally, I wonder if we really need to explain all that in so many
words. (But I won't object if you think it's useful.)