From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: ac131313@cygnus.com
Cc: shebs@apple.com, drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: which patches to review
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:04:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020425.175459.00457839.davem@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3CC8137D.6050809@cygnus.com>
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 10:32:29 -0400
One of GDB's overriding objectives it to get everything multi-arch. To
that end:
Post 5.0, every new architecture has to be mult-arched
Post 5.1, every addition to an existing architecture has to be mult-arch
enabled
As acceptence criteria, they are simple and transparent. I don't think
me stiching up some sort of cosy deal where you were some how excempted
from this would go down very well :-)
I think that is an unreasonable requirement and it will serve often to
deter new contributors. Because they will come here trying to
contribute support for a new platform, and they will do so on the
evaluation that they have the time to merge just that addition.
This means they think they have time to submit the addition and tweak
a thing or two to make the patch acceptable.
Unlike me, they won't have weeks upon weeks of spare time available to
multiarch the cpu target in question.
I believe this was a bad decision and it is not the only way the GDB
team could have obtained their goal of getting things multi-arched.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-26 1:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-22 22:49 David S. Miller
2002-04-23 7:47 ` Elena Zannoni
2002-04-23 7:54 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-04-23 22:19 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-24 8:53 ` Stan Shebs
2002-04-24 10:16 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-04-24 10:48 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-24 12:16 ` Kevin Buettner
2002-04-24 12:25 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-25 7:04 ` Andrew Cagney
[not found] ` <mailpost.1019743470.13502@news-sj1-1>
2002-04-25 9:19 ` cgd
2002-04-25 7:32 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-04-25 18:04 ` David S. Miller [this message]
2002-04-25 20:27 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-04-25 18:14 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-04-25 18:36 ` Christopher Faylor
2002-04-25 18:45 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-04-25 19:17 ` Christopher Faylor
2002-04-25 20:33 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-04-26 9:26 ` Stan Shebs
2002-04-25 20:17 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-04-25 22:00 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020425.175459.00457839.davem@redhat.com \
--to=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=ac131313@cygnus.com \
--cc=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=shebs@apple.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox