From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16181 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2004 09:35:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16142 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2004 09:34:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO balder.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.15) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Sep 2004 09:34:58 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.141.72]) by balder.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.7-GR) with ESMTP id DUE50390 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 10 Sep 2004 12:31:02 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:35:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Joel Brobecker Message-ID: <01c49718$Blat.v2.2.2$de0204a0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040909212638.GI5843@gnat.com> (message from Joel Brobecker on Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:26:38 -0700) Subject: Re: [patch] Deprecate XM_FILE and TM_FILE Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <413898FB.7080502@gnu.org> <01c49276$Blat.v2.2.2$c81daa00@zahav.net.il> <4139D06B.5060902@gnu.org> <01c4929c$Blat.v2.2.2$3333c200@zahav.net.il> <413A277E.3060700@gnu.org> <01c492ff$Blat.v2.2.2$4fec0480@zahav.net.il> <41407F45.2090401@gnu.org> <01c496a3$Blat.v2.2.2$8948c5e0@zahav.net.il> <4140BC4C.50003@gnu.org> <01c496b2$Blat.v2.2.2$22c509a0@zahav.net.il> <20040909212638.GI5843@gnat.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00161.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:26:38 -0700 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > That might be so, but I've seen too many "Garbage collect FOO" > > messages lately to know that, following every release, many deprecated > > features get eliminated in patches treated as obvious, with no > > discussion. > > As much as I find Andrew's methods sometimes too brutal for me, I have > to recognize that I don't remember him deliberately breaking a port > just because he wanted to remove something that has been deprecated. > I think we can trust him in not doing so without discussing it beforehand. This was never about Andrew's malicious intent or distrusting his motives. I don't think I said anything to that effect, but if I did, I sincerely apologize, because I never meant to imply anything like that. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion is strictly technical, it's not about motives. I trust Andrew's motives at least as much as you or anyone else does. > Also, I don't think Andrew is using the "obvious" rule here. The patches > are nowhere near obvious, I agree. He's using the global maintainer > priviledge. I'm not against the priviledges nor about Andrew's right to use them. I'm against deprecating a feature that is being used by a maintained port before introducing alternative mechanisms that replace the feature being deprecated.