This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: release-related minor questions (post switch to git)
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:22:03 -0700
- Subject: Re: release-related minor questions (post switch to git)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131122135653 dot GD3255 at adacore dot com>
>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Joel> 1. The branch name: Should we continue with the same naming scheme?
Joel> At the moment, we have:
Joel> I think this odd naming scheme comes from a CVS limitation,
Joel> and that we could switch to something such as:
Joel> On the other hand, the name is not *that* bad, and changing it
Joel> may break some pre-existing scripts. Since they would need to be
Joel> changed anyhow...
Using the more obvious name seems nicer to me, but I don't think it is
super important. Either one seems good enough.
I think we shouldn't worry about pre-existing scripts.
Joel> 2. Do we need a tag for the branch-point commit, or is it sufficient
Joel> to just document it.
Joel> I am wondering if anyone has ever used that tag, and whether
Joel> they would use it with the git repo...
In CVS you needed that tag to work sanely with branches.
git records the branchpoint for us, see "git help merge-base".
Joel> 3. For the release tag, the tag name syntax is like so:
Joel> Do we want to continue using the same format? In particular,
Joel> 3.a: Do we still need the date in the release tag
Joel> (that information is part of the tag)
I don't think it provides any useful information.
Joel> 3.b Same as 1; use a more natural syntax re version number?
It seems sensible to make parallel decisions for (1) and (3b).