Re: [patch rfa:doco rfc:NEWS] mi1 -> mi2; rm mi0

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 06:06:34PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >>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?
> 
> I just looked, and I take the idea back.  It means updating NEWS, DOC 
> and testsuite twice - just after the branch (to start the new interface) 
> and just before a branch (to freeze the new interface).
> 
> I think its going to be easier to get it all done once just after the 
> branch.  If someone reports a bug against a YYYYMMDD version of GDB then 
> it's pretty clear that they are not using a released GDB.

OK.  My logic went like:
  It would be nice to be able to use a snapshot, which has
non-MI-syntax-related improvements and fixes in it, without having to
handle a changing interface.

But we can already do that: they use -i=mi1.  So it's all good.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer