Re: [patch] Deprecate XM_FILE and TM_FILE

["Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 12:16:59 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> I thought we discussed this with the attached.

Did I miss a point where that discussion concluded that it was okay to
deprecate xm-go32.h right away?

For all I know, that discussion was about the idea in principle, and I
somehow thought that you were offering to write the necessary
configury stuff yourself.  No one ever said to me that the next thing
I'll see is the DJGPP port being deprecated.  That is something I'd
expect to be said explicitly, rather than in a committed patch that
pretends to be ``obvious''.

How in the world can you deprecate a port without first asking its
designated maintainer, and without waiting for his/her explicit
approval??

On a more general note, too many commits lately are too trigger-happy
to my taste.  There are fewer and fewer patches that are thoroughly
discussed and where dissenting views are honored rather than ignored.
For me, that makes the GDB development a much less enjoyable
environment than it was for quite a few years before.