From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17356 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2008 16:42:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 17348 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Apr 2008 16:42:04 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw2.br.ibm.com (HELO igw2.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:41:36 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (mailhub3 [9.18.232.110]) by igw2.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9A5517F6C8 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:31:30 -0300 (BRST) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m3UGfXnV3715112 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:41:33 -0300 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m3UGfVR1030637 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:41:31 -0300 Received: from [9.18.238.95] ([9.18.238.95]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m3UGfVRn030634; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:41:31 -0300 Subject: Re: [RFC][patch 0/9] Python support in GDB From: Thiago Jung Bauermann To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: References: <20080429155212.444237503@br.ibm.com> <1209493060.25413.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:38:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1209573496.7034.22.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00709.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2008-04-30 at 06:21 +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > I understand the urge to avoid unnecessary work. That is why I said > _minimal_ documentation. I find it hard to believe that nothing can > be said about this feature that will not change based on further > discussion. Oh, I see. Yes, it's perfectly reasonable. > Unless all that discussion happens before the patches are > committed to the GDB CVS, in which case I have no problems waiting > till then. But whenever the patches are actually committed, I will > object to doing so without some minimal documentation that describes > its usage. I'm inclined to take this approach. At the moment I prefer to see what folks will say about the current implementation, and when at least one of these patches is ready to be committed I'll include documentation to go with it. -- []'s Thiago Jung Bauermann Software Engineer IBM Linux Technology Center