This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: CVS versions of gdb have same number as stable version.
- To: jtc at redback dot com
- Subject: Re: CVS versions of gdb have same number as stable version.
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:28:40 -0800
- Cc: ac131313 at cygnus dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
Hi J. T.,
> Don't other GNU projects do things like 5.0.XX, where XX starts off at
> a high number like 80 and is periodically incremented until the next
I will change it to "5.0.90", or whatever, if a maintainer with the
authority to approve this patch specifies an exact string and states
that they will approve that string.
Then I'll check in such patch without another round of [RFA].
> Another alternative would be a date stamp, similar to GDB snapshots.
I think you mean "similar to gcc snapshots". I'm not going to do that.
gcc has additional configury to do that, and I am not going to port that
configury and then qualify it on a bunch of platforms.
Instead I'm going to spend my time in gdb/7, analyzing why gdb core dumps
when I do "maint print symbols" in some gdb that calls itself 5.0 on the
user's system. If I can get bleeding edge CVS gdb to quit calling itself
5.0, that makes my task easier. (Not to mention I have a day job.)
If someone else wants to do "gdb ...-$(DATE)", great. This patch won't
make their work any more difficult.
I hate this pattern:
Would-be contributor notices a bug.
Would-be contributor writes a patch.
Maintainer says: "if you're going to fix the problem, how about doing
lots more work while you are in there?"
My patch is on the table.
-- specific counter-proposal?