This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: More code code dropping
- From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>
- To: Paul Hilfinger <hilfingr at gnat dot com>, ac131313 at cygnus dot com
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 08:54:49 -0700
- Subject: Re: More code code dropping
- References: <20011129005901.A60085@molenda.com> <200112070641.WAA01521@localhost.localdomain> <3C10E0F3.2010607@cygnus.com> <3C10E386.2070809@cygnus.com> <20011208081530.BC4D8F28C6@nile.gnat.com>
On Dec 8, 3:15am, Paul Hilfinger wrote:
> I thought that a diff against the gdb 5.0 release
> was probably most useful. Andrew had suggested a patch against the
> latest, bleeding-edge changes. Since the idea of a diff is to give the
> curious some idea of our changes, it seemed to me that the latter diff would
> show mostly undoings of more recent changes to GDB. If anyone else out
> there has an opinion on this subject, I'd like to hear it.
I think it depends upon what you want. Personally, I'd be interested
in seeing a patch that shows the changes that ACT has made. So the
best candidate for diffing against would be the version of GDB that
you merged with in your most recent merge.
OTOH, a patch against the bleeding edge sources gives us a method of
obtaining your source tree. Personally, I think it'd just be better
for you to drop a tarball someplace if this is what's desired.
As I think about it now, I think a tarball is probably the best
approach anyway. That, along with a pointer to the version of
GDB that you merged against should allow those interested to
do their own diffs in whatever why they want...
Kevin