From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pf1-x42d.google.com (mail-pf1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42d]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8C698385608E for ; Wed, 25 May 2022 02:02:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8C698385608E Received: by mail-pf1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id p8so17970291pfh.8 for ; Tue, 24 May 2022 19:02:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=BC2IORASAmJ/hXZ2Mfi1omUaXrsqwjCYqbbAHoxzxjo=; b=TY1hz+4iv1Di5dBuqJIqecern5cXA6ko5Oz0Pd55TXifJYLpnCGE7taWtDVeMpdrN7 8Nh8iqC8C85dRCfLXcr0/Qw55JcvFvaT9Dk4js3IxTfY4TIITbClibM5gu3F74Fzr6x1 Q69ichfpaKeC1/BHmoisXvl3J2wYNVZM07/yMZ1Tzhs2/EduIC8ASSbzuEMGKR/5vCWF cYM5smXdY9Hnj4UqwydJzEdsVPYrRHkauH4fWtuQWQm18uB/wnznS4IWhN0HCjd2tqV1 S2lYQYtDyffyaxJsGgr2kT2k/a9zz4XSfeWtHRtFI5ZVi2O4iXjUVAQGCAvrSwzz5Ka3 EP2w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Xl0FiO7X2BRdpEoq+gplxgLjJI17fYN8bhqt8D0ChqeoemZTA jkXSA5CU+c6VaubITrJLUmPFBDW1b77G X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyRiuXBU3MpeEsiTMhoQAfRwfW89ZeW11cHXbWn9rZmYbz2XDqEJ6u7u4FVcZAC93YYUCq4eg== X-Received: by 2002:a63:4387:0:b0:3c6:9490:4e4b with SMTP id q129-20020a634387000000b003c694904e4bmr26301209pga.438.1653444166669; Tue, 24 May 2022 19:02:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from takamaka.home ([184.69.131.86]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n10-20020a056a00212a00b0050dc762816bsm10052868pfj.69.2022.05.24.19.02.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 24 May 2022 19:02:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by takamaka.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3C42EA720D; Tue, 24 May 2022 19:02:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 19:02:45 -0700 From: Joel Brobecker To: Japin Li via Gdb Cc: Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: Question about gdb bugfix backpatch policy Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 02:02:49 -0000 Hello, > Recently, I have a segfault using GDB 8.1.1. After search, I found it > [1] fixed in later version (such as GDB 12.1). I want to know why > this doestn't backpatch to where it occurs? > > [1] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23613 In the GDB project, we only maintain 1 active release branch (in addition to our main development branch). When we make fixes, we normally make the fix on the main development branch first, and then a selection of those patches, based on how important and safe they are, are also backported to the one active release branch. In this case, the GDB 8.1 release branch was closed by the time this fix was pushed. It was therefore to late to even consider including it in 8.1.1. -- Joel