From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26028 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2009 07:08:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 26009 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Apr 2009 07:08:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:08:29 +0000 Received: (qmail 30020 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2009 07:08:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wind.localnet) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 8 Apr 2009 07:08:19 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Implement -exec-jump Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:08:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.90 (Linux/2.6.24-24-generic; KDE/4.2.68; i686; svn-948090; 2009-04-01) Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200904080950.16691.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <838wmb63h9.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <838wmb63h9.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200904081108.17248.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-04/txt/msg00140.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 08 April 2009 10:53:22 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Vladimir Prus > > Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 09:50:16 +0400 > > > > > > This patch, committed, implements the -exec-jump MI command. > > (Documentation follows later) > > Please don't commit patches without the docs to go with them. Many > people (and even distributions) use development snapshots or the CVS > directly these days, and I would like to avoid the situation where > they get features without documentation. I think we all should want > this. Don't you think that if some person, or distribution, grabs random state from CVS, he should be capable of judging what he gets? If he is incapable of such judgement, it is his problem. > It is okay to _post_ a patch for review saying that the documentation > patch will be _posted_ later, but actually _committing_ the code part > is something very different. Is this rule documented anywhere? And if it is, it is a very inconvenient rule. It is much easier for me to find two chunks of time for code and documentation separately, rather than finding large chunk of time to do them both -- to the point where I might not be able to fix such small issues at all. Do you think having a window of time where *development version* has an undocumented feature that is primary targeted at *frontend developers* is worse than not having that feature at all? - Volodya