From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32096 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2003 23:56:49 -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 32089 invoked from network); 24 Nov 2003 23:56:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Nov 2003 23:56:49 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAONumH00303 for ; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:56:48 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hAONumw26313; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:56:48 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-29.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.29]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hAONulKL024842; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 18:56:47 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hAONufI11195; Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:56:41 -0700 Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:56:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031124235641.ZM11194@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses" (Nov 24, 3:32pm) References: <3FC119EB.1060102@gnu.org> <3FC234C0.1000500@gnu.org> <20031124165047.GA2227@nevyn.them.org> <1031124182547.ZM9776@localhost.localdomain> <3FC26AD4.1040704@gnu.org> To: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-11/txt/msg00550.txt.bz2 On Nov 24, 3:32pm, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > I too would like to see discussion over whether a particular interface > > ought to be deprecated or outright replaced instead of presenting the > > renaming as a fait accompli. > > Please explain. This STREQ issue is a good example. You chose to post an already committed patch which did the renaming instead of first discussing the approaches by which STREQ could be eliminated. IMO, it would have been better to discuss the matter first and arrive at a consensus on how it should be eliminated. (Or even if it should be eliminated.) Kevin