From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16258 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2002 01:45:47 -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 16240 invoked from network); 26 Apr 2002 01:45:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 26 Apr 2002 01:45:41 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 170uo3-0003QS-00; Thu, 25 Apr 2002 21:45:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:45:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney , "David S. Miller" , shebs@apple.com Subject: Re: which patches to review Message-ID: <20020425214551.A12948@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney , "David S. Miller" , shebs@apple.com References: <20020423.220943.39181580.davem@redhat.com> <3CC6D4E2.E5858735@apple.com> <3CC6E84D.2090403@cygnus.com> <20020424.103856.00478620.davem@redhat.com> <3CC8137D.6050809@cygnus.com> <20020425211324.A6519@nevyn.them.org> <20020426013611.GA30067@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020426013611.GA30067@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01062.txt.bz2 On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:36:11PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 09:13:24PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >On Thu, Apr 25, 2002 at 10:32:29AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> > From: Andrew Cagney > >> >Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:15:57 -0400 > >> > > >> > Here, you're mistaken. > >> > > >> >He isn't %100 wrong. I've been asked repeatedly to basically > >> >multi-arch the Sparc targets out the wazoo to get the Linux > >> >Sparc bits in. > >> > >> 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 :-) > > > >Again with due respect, I've got to object to the point of view in this > >message. I wouldn't say that becoming multi-arch is "one of GDB's > >overriding objectives". It's something that we all agree would be good > >for GDB; it's something that I agree with you should happen before our > >next release, which is not scheduled for at least four months IIRC. > >But if it is an "overriding objective", it's only so for you. My > >overriding objective is for GDB to improve. > > Hmm. I was under the impression that 1) Andrew was the head maintainer > for gdb If so, this isn't said anywhere. It certainly may be true; all I know is that he's a blanket write maintainer and the release manager for the last several releases. If the GDB projects has a single head maintainer, perhaps that should be listed in gdb/MAINTAINERS somewhere? > and, so, got to specify little things like "overriding > directions" for gdb, and To the extent of excluding large contributions that don't seem to conflict in any substantial way with his design improvements? > 2) multiarching targets was an improvement. Sure it is. So are David's SPARC/Linux patches, and they're a much more concrete one to users. I was just objecting to the one "obviously" trumping with the other. I'm going to shut up now; I've no desire for a protacted argument and I've foolishly walked into the middle of one. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer