From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 52301 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2019 07:48:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 44588 invoked by uid 89); 14 Dec 2019 07:48:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:1859, enjoy X-HELO: eggs.gnu.org Received: from eggs.gnu.org (HELO eggs.gnu.org) (209.51.188.92) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 07:48:17 +0000 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:57545) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ig29t-0005XL-LK; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 02:48:13 -0500 Received: from [176.228.60.248] (port=3240 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ig29p-0004vQ-Nf; Sat, 14 Dec 2019 02:48:13 -0500 Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 07:48:00 -0000 Message-Id: <83immj73gx.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Joel Brobecker CC: tromey@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20191213234744.GB18579@adacore.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Sat, 14 Dec 2019 00:47:44 +0100) Subject: Re: GDB 9.1 Release: Creating the branch on *WED* Dec 11th! References: <20191208010532.GA22794@adacore.com> <878snkutg0.fsf@tromey.com> <20191212223601.GA13716@adacore.com> <83immk8xyl.fsf@gnu.org> <20191213234744.GB18579@adacore.com> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00654.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 00:47:44 +0100 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: tromey@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > Does this mean the pretest published yesterday doesn't represent the > > upcoming release well enough, as these changesets are still part of > > it? If so, can we please have a better pretest soon? I planned on > > building the pretest on MinGW soon, as I've seen many changes that > > might "need work" in the MinGW port. > > What we mean is that we we will not be including these patches in > the GDB 9.1 release. But they are included in the pretest tarball? > One thing I'd like to suggest is if you could do a first pre-check > when I announce that the branch creation is a few days away. > If you find something sufficiently bad, this would be grounds > for me to either hold the branch creation, or else hold the > creation of the pre-release. I don't who else could help with that, > because I don't anyone but you building GDB with the configuration > that you use -- I know we build a MinGW version of GDB on Windows, > but we use MinGW64 and do not see the issues that you have been > reporting in the past -- so aside from you, I don't know who else > can do it. Thanks, I'm okay with testing the first pretest, and fixing any problems in the release branch. I was asking whether the current pretest is a good approximation for the release, as I don't enjoy solving problems I don't need to solve, and Gnulib has been historically an important source of problems for MinGW. If there are significant changes (not bugfixes) expected before the release, I'd prefer a pretest after those changes. I'm not sure I understand what was the decision regarding the specific issue mentioned above, if there was a decision. Am I missing something.