From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10659 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2002 15:16:44 -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 10652 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2002 15:16:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2002 15:16:43 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17w3Dg-0000Tp-00; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:16:28 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17w2I9-0004ef-00; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:17:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:16:00 -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: <20020930151700.GA17849@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> <20020930045522.GA28510@nevyn.them.org> <3D9867DB.4010607@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D9867DB.4010607@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00752.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:03:55AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>> > >>>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. > > It's a bit late for that. Someone should audit the changes made so far > and identify which caused syntax changes and update accordingly. Fixes > could, perhaphs be pushed into 5.3 (but I don't have the time). > > >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. > > I think a line is drawn when each release is made. I'd expect an MI > client to explicitly specify -i=miN (where N was formally released) > rather than trust -i=mi. > > However, should the HEAD hold off on recognizing -i=mi2 until the next > branch is cut? On the HEAD, -i=mi evolves by definition. However, > -i=mi2 is evolving as well :-( That'd be best I think. I think that -i=mi2 specifies a fixed standard and we don't have one yet; so how about -i=mi being different from -i=mi1, but not adding -i=mi2 until we're ready to fix the interface? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer