From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-56957-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 32315 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2008 05:37:36 -0000
Received: (qmail 32306 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jun 2008 05:37:35 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 29 Jun 2008 05:37:18 +0000
Received: (qmail 15408 invoked from network); 29 Jun 2008 05:37:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO wind.local) (vladimir@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 29 Jun 2008 05:37:16 -0000
From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [MI non-stop 0/11] Series overview
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 05:47:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <200806282033.28441.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <g45se6$569$1@ger.gmane.org> <uabh5ctt4.fsf@gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <uabh5ctt4.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200806290937.18990.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-06/txt/msg00571.txt.bz2

On Saturday 28 June 2008 22:12:39 Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From:  Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> > Date:  Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:29:44 +0400
> > 
> > > What about documenting the new features?
> > 
> > Why do you think the MI non-stop spec and the thread behaviour spec were written? 
> > As usual, and even more than usual due to huge amount of text, I'm not going to 
> > mess with texinfo until I'm sure nobody has big objections about the behaviour.
> 
> I just didn't see anything about the docs, not even a note saying it
> will be posted later.  

I've forgot to mention that; sorry.

> Btw, you don't need to mess with Texinfo if you don't want to.  You
> can write the documentation as free text, and I will add Texinfo
> markup.

Does that mean I have to send a patch adding just a bunch of free text,
or you prefer some other approach?

- Volodya