Re: Preparing for the GDB 5.0 / GDB 2000 / GDB2k release

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

Jason Molenda wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2000 at 12:26:45AM +1100, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > With that in mind, I've tentatively planned: two weeks of
> > patch resolution; the cutting of the 5.0 branch (2000-02-21?); one week
> > of last minute checks; and then the 5.0 release (29/2 2000-02-29?).
> > (Everyone is free to roll on the floor laughing at this point :-)
> 
> I think this is too aggressive.  If we had the old source base, maybe it
> would be tenable, but the new repository has mixed the old GDB sources
> with a BFD that hasn't been sync'ed for something like six months.
> And there hasn't been a binutils release in over a year and a half--so
> the stability of binutils across a wide array of platforms has to be
> considered.

I make an ambid claim, everyone else steps up to the table with their
personal agenda, we all start to negotiate .... :-)

> Maybe it would be better to get some test results from a variety of common
> Unix platforms and decide based on how things look.  NB cygwin support
> in binutils is noticably broken -- it will take at least a little work
> to get that resolved.

Yes, more than anything else I should be interested build/test results. 
Thanks for reminding me :-)

> On the other hand, I do agree that a release will go much more smoothly
> now that the repository is on sourceware.

Yes, turn around time once a patch is approved is going to tend to zero.
Ya!

Any way, you will have noticed that I've (for the first time ever?)
given an approximate date for the major release that will follow 5.0. 
I've done it for two reasons:

	o	to make it clear how quickly this release
		really should come out.

	o	to make it clear that if something misses
		the 5.0 boat then 5.1 will be departing
		less than 6 months later.
		
Given that this is a real departure from GDB's previous habits (1-2 year
release cycles) I suspect I'm going to have difficulty convincing people
- I can but try :-).

I think of 5.0 as a consolidation of the significant amount of
re-engineering that has gone on over the last year.  For it I'm only
going to be worried about major failures or serious losses of
functionality.  Enhancements are for 5.1.

> MHO

Always more than welcome :-)

	enjoy,
		Andrew