From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24698 invoked by alias); 17 May 2008 19:49:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 24688 invoked by uid 22791); 17 May 2008 19:49:11 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 17 May 2008 19:48:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20912A981D; Sat, 17 May 2008 15:48:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id i6sRVXpsoCHG; Sat, 17 May 2008 15:48:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A98C2A97FA; Sat, 17 May 2008 15:48:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A809FE7ACD; Sat, 17 May 2008 12:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 08:48:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Bob Rossi , nickrob@snap.net.nz, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] New annotation for threads Message-ID: <20080517194844.GE1744@adacore.com> References: <18454.43094.168458.742737@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080501181758.GD3801@adacore.com> <18458.21177.959458.278174@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080501233703.GF3801@adacore.com> <18458.23326.25887.70597@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <18478.48682.13900.951343@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080517135757.GK6437@brasko.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-05/txt/msg00540.txt.bz2 > > > Then you should submit a patch to remove all docs of annotations from > > > the manual, and try to convince us to accept it. Not documenting just > > > one piece is inconsistent and doesn't make sense. > > > > I would object to a patch like this. > > Me too, but if Nick could convince most of the other maintainers, I'd > have hard time refusing to do it. I would also object to such a patch. My opinion on this is that, as long as we support annotations, they should be properly documented. The fact that, eventually, they will be phased out in favor of MI should not influence the quality of our documentation for what is currently supported. -- Joel