From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1673 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2003 04:21:41 -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 1643 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2003 04:21:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2003 04:21:41 -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 hB44Le214061 for ; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:21:40 -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 hB44Le219868; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:21:40 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-70.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.70]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id hB44LdbS025929; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 23:21:39 -0500 Received: (from kev@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id hB44LYg03613; Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:21:34 -0700 Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:21:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner Message-Id: <1031204042134.ZM3612@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney "Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses" (Nov 24, 8:33pm) References: <3FC119EB.1060102@gnu.org> <3FC234C0.1000500@gnu.org> <20031124165047.GA2227@nevyn.them.org> <1031124182547.ZM9776@localhost.localdomain> <3FC26AD4.1040704@gnu.org> <1031124235641.ZM11194@localhost.localdomain> <3FC2B177.7080100@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: 2003-12/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 On Nov 24, 8:33pm, 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.) > > Are you talking generally or just in terms of STREQ? Generally. As I stated earlier, I think we should try to reach some sort of consensus regarding which interfaces to deprecate. Kevin