From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28944 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2002 01:04:42 -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 28937 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 01:04:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pizda.ninka.net) (216.101.162.242) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 01:04:42 -0000 Received: from localhost (IDENT:davem@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by pizda.ninka.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12298; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 17:54:59 -0700 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:04:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20020425.175459.00457839.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 From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <3CC8137D.6050809@cygnus.com> References: <3CC6E84D.2090403@cygnus.com> <20020424.103856.00478620.davem@redhat.com> <3CC8137D.6050809@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01051.txt.bz2 From: Andrew Cagney 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.