From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30194 invoked by alias); 9 May 2003 18:17:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30170 invoked from network); 9 May 2003 18:17:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2003 18:17:47 -0000 Received: from duracef.shout.net (duracef.shout.net [204.253.184.12]) by concert.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h49IHkFN029747; Fri, 9 May 2003 13:17:46 -0500 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h49IHk16011922; Fri, 9 May 2003 13:17:46 -0500 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h49IHiYN011921; Fri, 9 May 2003 14:17:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 18:17:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200305091817.h49IHiYN011921@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB 6 X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00142.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > Given this, I think the next release of GDB should be named ``GDB 6''. I was hoping that it would be gdb 5.4, and that we would tell everyone that has 5.3 that it's good for them to upgrade to 5.4. Guess I'm outvoted. :) The last time I compared 5.3 to HEAD was more than a month ago. HEAD was in pretty good shape then -- better than gdb-5_3-branch was when it was branched. I will try to get back to testing and reporting soon, but I can't promise anything. Michael C