From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9325 invoked by alias); 13 Apr 2012 19:10:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 9315 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Apr 2012 19:10:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:10:23 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A391B1C6CDA; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id dACE97VNY7Cs; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B7061C6CCE; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:10:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EDB5E145616; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:10:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: 2 weeks away from potential GDB 7.4.1 release... Message-ID: <20120413191018.GG25623@adacore.com> References: <20120412153301.GW25623@adacore.com> <20120413131539.GC22952@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120413131539.GC22952@host2.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-04/txt/msg00100.txt.bz2 > there is still unfinished but it should make it in time. > [patch+7.4] Fix gdbserver qXfer:libraries-svr4 regression in special cases > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-03/msg00120.html > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-04/msg00192.html No objection. If you guys think it is a safe patch, it is good enough for me, since it fixes a regression. > Still maybe there should be an evaluation of each commit and their > backporting like what happens with GCC stable branches. I admit I do > not do it even in downstream/Fedora releases. That would require a lot of time to complete this effort, IMO. Anyone wanting to do it is welcome to do so, of course; but I prefer the distributed approach where we try to remember about the branch when posting/reviewing patches, and decide there and then whether to backport it or not. And then ask about the few ones that we might have missed using the 2-weeks-to-release heads up email. -- Joel