[RFA] [doc] Don't mention dmi-discuss

[RFA] [doc] Don't mention dmi-discuss

[Vladimir Prus]

I've noticed the MI manual mentions the dmi-discuss mailing list,
which is basically dead at this point.

Is the below OK?

- Volodya

---
 gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo |    6 +-----
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
index 46d5904..294276c 100644
--- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
+++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
@@ -18035,11 +18035,7 @@ responsibility of the front end to work with the new one.
 The best way to avoid unexpected changes in MI that might break your front
 end is to make your project known to @value{GDBN} developers and
 follow development on @email{gdb@@sourceware.org} and
-@email{gdb-patches@@sourceware.org}.  There is also the mailing list
-@email{dmi-discuss@@lists.freestandards.org}, hosted by the Free Standards
-Group, which has the aim of creating a more general MI protocol
-called Debugger Machine Interface (DMI) that will become a standard
-for all debuggers, not just @value{GDBN}.
+@email{gdb-patches@@sourceware.org}.
 @cindex mailing lists
 
 @c %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% SECTION %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
-- 
1.5.3.5

Re: [RFA] [doc] Don't mention dmi-discuss

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:31:07 +0400
> 
> 
> I've noticed the MI manual mentions the dmi-discuss mailing list,
> which is basically dead at this point.

Is it?  I don't remember any announcements about its demise, but maybe
I missed something.

> Is the below OK?

I have no objections, if the list is indeed dead.

Re: [RFA] [doc] Don't mention dmi-discuss

[Vladimir Prus]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
>> Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:31:07 +0400
>> 
>> 
>> I've noticed the MI manual mentions the dmi-discuss mailing list,
>> which is basically dead at this point.
> 
> Is it?  I don't remember any announcements about its demise, but maybe
> I missed something.

The last post is from November 2006. The group, unfortunately, never made
any progress -- there were no actual discussion of MI shortcomings, or
desired features, or anything.

>> Is the below OK?
> 
> I have no objections, if the list is indeed dead.

Ok, I'll check this in in a couple of days.

- Volodya