This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: GDB 6.1 branch end jan?
- From: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
- To: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:15:16 -0500
- Subject: Re: GDB 6.1 branch end jan?
- References: <3FFC98E8.8010001@gnu.org>
PS:
I need to remember to include the following information in this initial
post. I always seem to receive a slew of private e-mails asking if some
yet to be contributed/announced "port" (architecture or system) can be
squeesed into the next release.
Per:
http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdbint_15.html#SEC132
--
15.2 Branch Commit Policy
The branch commit policy is pretty slack. GDB releases 5.0, 5.1 and 5.2
all used the below:
* The `gdb/MAINTAINERS' file still holds.
* Don't fix something on the branch unless/until it is also fixed in the
trunk. If this isn't possible, mentioning it in the `gdb/PROBLEMS' file
is better than committing a hack.
* When considering a patch for the branch, suggested criteria include:
Does it fix a build? Does it fix the sequence break main; run when
debugging a static binary?
* The further a change is from the core of GDB, the less likely the
change will worry anyone (e.g., target specific code).
* Only post a proposal to change the core of GDB after you've sent
individual bribes to all the people listed in the `MAINTAINERS' file ;-)
Pragmatics: Provided updates are restricted to non-core functionality
there is little chance that a broken change will be fatal. This means
that changes such as adding a new architectures or (within reason)
support for a new host are considered acceptable.
--
I should also note that with 6.0, significant flexability was afforded
to people trying to frame-ify their architecture.
Andrew