CVS versions of gdb have same number as stable version.

[Elena Zannoni]

Kevin Buettner writes:
 > On Feb 16, 11:57am, J.T. Conklin wrote:
 > 
 > > If I'm not misremembering the 5.0.XX convention (perhaps it's only
 > > used for formal 5.1 test releases), I'd approve the change.  I
 > > strongly prefer that form to "-experimental".  But I would prefer
 > > input from others, cuz it seems somehow wrong to approve your own
 > > proposal.
 > 
 > I think that 5.0.XX makes sense for the branch that'll eventually be
 > created for the 5.1 release.  For the development sources, I think
 > that Michael C's suggestion of "5.1-experimental" (or whatever it was)
 > is preferable since it also clearly distinguishes between release
 > candidates and the ongoing development on the trunk.
 > 
 > Kevin
 > 

Let's look at the history:

1999-04-09  Jim Blandy  <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>

        * GDB 4.18 released.
        * Makefile.in (VERSION): Bump to 4.18.1.

Mon Mar  2 17:04:25 1998  Jason Molenda  (crash@bugshack.cygnus.com)

        * Makefile (VERSION): Bump to 4.17.1.

Mon Apr 22 20:17:01 1996  Fred Fish  <fnf@cygnus.com>

        * Makefile.in (VERSION): Bump version number to 4.16.1.
        * NEWS: Update for 4.16 release.

Wed Feb 28 15:50:12 1996  Fred Fish  <fnf@cygnus.com>

        * Makefile.in (VERSION): Bump version to 4.15.2 to establish
        baseline for gdb 4.16 rerelease testing.

Wed Oct 11 17:25:59 1995  Fred Fish  <fnf@rtl.cygnus.com>

        * Makefile.in (VERSION): Bump version to 4.15.1

Tue Oct 10 15:26:39 1995  Fred Fish  <fnf@cygnus.com>

        * Makefile.in (VERSION): Version 4.15 released.
        * README: Updated for version 4.15.
        * NEWS: Updated for 4.15 release.


Etc. Etc.


I am in favour of 5.0.1, which is consistent with what we did in the
past.

Elena