From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5950 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2002 22:36:07 -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 5939 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2002 22:36:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2002 22:36:06 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17wA2n-0001Ax-00 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:35:57 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17w95Z-0007xo-00 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:32:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:36:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch rfa:doco rfc:NEWS] mi1 -> mi2; rm mi0 Message-ID: <20020930223229.GA30594@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: 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> <20020930151700.GA17849@nevyn.them.org> <3D98CAEA.7000304@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D98CAEA.7000304@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00788.txt.bz2 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