[MI non-stop 0/11] Series overview

[MI non-stop 0/11] Series overview

[Vladimir Prus]

I'm about to post, finally, the set of patches that add MI-side support for
non-stop behaviour. The only dependency is Pedro's core non-stop set.

Actually, Pedro's patches already make basic non-stop
mode work in MI, and my patches address various, mostly independent,
issues that are still important to get a frontend that work well.

All patches are ready to be committed, except the patch for enabling non-stop
with a single command -- that one needs discussion. 

- Volodya

Re: [MI non-stop 0/11] Series overview

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:33:27 +0400
> 
> 
> I'm about to post, finally, the set of patches that add MI-side support for
> non-stop behaviour. The only dependency is Pedro's core non-stop set.
> 
> Actually, Pedro's patches already make basic non-stop
> mode work in MI, and my patches address various, mostly independent,
> issues that are still important to get a frontend that work well.
> 
> All patches are ready to be committed, except the patch for enabling non-stop
> with a single command -- that one needs discussion. 

What about documenting the new features?

Re: [MI non-stop 0/11] Series overview

[Vladimir Prus]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

>> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
>> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:33:27 +0400
>> 
>> 
>> I'm about to post, finally, the set of patches that add MI-side support for
>> non-stop behaviour. The only dependency is Pedro's core non-stop set.
>> 
>> Actually, Pedro's patches already make basic non-stop
>> mode work in MI, and my patches address various, mostly independent,
>> issues that are still important to get a frontend that work well.
>> 
>> All patches are ready to be committed, except the patch for enabling non-stop
>> with a single command -- that one needs discussion.
> 
> 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.

- Volodya

Re: [MI non-stop 0/11] Series overview

[Stan Shebs]

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
>   
>>> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
>>> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:33:27 +0400
>>>
>>>
>>> All patches are ready to be committed, except the patch for enabling non-stop
>>> with a single command -- that one needs discussion.
>>>       
>> 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'm with Eli on this actually. I can sympathize with the desire not to 
waste time writing about code that won't go in, but if as you say, the 
patches are ready to be committed, and the basic design has already been 
approved, then it seems pretty likely that any documentation text will 
receive at most minor changes. The specs are good to have too, but 
they're not really a replacement for user documentation; in fact they 
should be fodder for the internals manual.

A beneficial side effect of preparing doc text with the code is that it 
helps reviewers relate the code changes to intended observable behavior, 
whereas the spec might or might not be out of date, things having 
changed due to implementation issues or feedback on related work.

Stan

Re: [MI non-stop 0/11] Series overview

[Vladimir Prus]

On Saturday 28 June 2008 21:44:09 Stan Shebs wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >
> >   
> >>> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> >>> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:33:27 +0400
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> All patches are ready to be committed, except the patch for enabling non-stop
> >>> with a single command -- that one needs discussion.
> >>>       
> >> 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'm with Eli on this actually. I can sympathize with the desire not to 
> waste time writing about code that won't go in, but if as you say, the 
> patches are ready to be committed, and the basic design has already been 
> approved, then it seems pretty likely that any documentation text will 
> receive at most minor changes. The specs are good to have too, but 
> they're not really a replacement for user documentation; in fact they 
> should be fodder for the internals manual.

Well, since we're talking about MI -- which is fairly formal protocol itself,
spec is very close to what will come in documentation.

> A beneficial side effect of preparing doc text with the code is that it 
> helps reviewers relate the code changes to intended observable behavior, 
> whereas the spec might or might not be out of date, things having 
> changed due to implementation issues or feedback on related work.

By my book, spec that's not up-to-date is not a spec :-)

- Volodya

Re: [MI non-stop 0/11] Series overview

[Eli Zaretskii]

> 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.  Nothing to get angry about.

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.

Re: [MI non-stop 0/11] Series overview

[Vladimir Prus]

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

Re: [MI non-stop 0/11] Series overview

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:37:18 +0400
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> > 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?

If you send plain text, a patch will not be useful, since I cannot
apply it, obviously.  So just send the text itself, and tell in what
place in the manual you suggest to put it.