From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25333 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2002 04:55:02 -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 25326 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2002 04:55:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2002 04:55:01 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17vtW7-00087Z-00; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 00:54:51 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17vsaY-0000LM-00; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 00:55:22 -0400 Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:55:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch rfa:doco rfc:NEWS] mi1 -> mi2; rm mi0 Message-ID: <20020930045522.GA28510@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3D974315.2050201@redhat.com> <20020929195533.GA5967@nevyn.them.org> <3D97603F.7080906@redhat.com> <20020929213757.GA9950@nevyn.them.org> <3D97749E.9020306@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D97749E.9020306@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00740.txt.bz2 On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 05:46:06PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 04:19:11PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>>On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 02:14:45PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>> > > > >>>>Hello, > >>>> > >>>>The attached patch updates things so that "mi2" is the default MI > >>>>syntax. I need to add a mechanism so that the MI code can query the > >>>>version but I'll post that separatly. > >>>> > >>>>It modifies NEWS (comments?). > >>>>It updates the doco (ok?). > >>>> > >>>>Andrew > > > >>> > >>> > >>>It seems to me that this is going about everything backwards. > >>> > >>>There isn't an mi2 yet, is there? > > > >> > >>Actually, I think "mi2" changes have been sneeking through for a while. > >> The attached, for instance, modifies [fixes] a commands output in a > >>way that isn't backward compatible. > > > > > >Are you planning to revert mi1 then? > > Que? "mi2" changes have been sneaking in. Are you planning to revert them - create an "mi1" which matches what mi1 actually was. Otherwise, where is the line drawn to mark the interface version as final? It seems to me that the default shouldn't be evolving, that -i=mi should default to a fixed point until the next version is running. Maybe I'm wrong though. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer