From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-59889-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 27937 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2008 14:48:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 27905 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2008 14:48:01 -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; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:47:24 +0000
Received: (qmail 2736 invoked from network); 13 Nov 2008 14:47:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO wind.localnet) (vladimir@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 13 Nov 2008 14:47:21 -0000
From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] MI non-stop and multiprocess docs.
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:27:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.10.90 (Linux/2.6.24-21-generic; KDE/4.1.71; i686; svn-881624; 2008-11-08)
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <200811042214.51102.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200811130016.20863.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <u63msp8ie.fsf@gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <u63msp8ie.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200811131747.02283.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: 2008-11/txt/msg00280.txt.bz2

On Thursday 13 November 2008 07:14:33 Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 00:16:20 +0300
> > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> >
> > > "General Aspects of Interacting with GDB/MI"?
> >
> > That's heavy, I think.
>
> How do you mean "heavy"?
>
>  If you object to "design" then what about:
> > 	- "GDB/MI General Overview", or
> > 	- "GDB/MI General Concepts",
>
> Again, I don't think that's what the section is about.
>
> But we are arguing too long about something that's not important
> enough to argue about.

Ok, I'll then leave the patch as it -- assuming no behaviour changes happens 
when submitting the actual patches.

Thanks again,
Volodya