From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23212 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2009 09:16:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 23197 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Apr 2009 09:16:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp.nokia.com (HELO mgw-mx06.nokia.com) (192.100.122.233) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:16:24 +0000 Received: from esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh105.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.211]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n389G4gd005314 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 12:16:17 +0300 Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by esebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 12:16:04 +0300 Received: from mgw-int01.ntc.nokia.com ([172.21.143.96]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 8 Apr 2009 12:16:01 +0300 Received: from gar.localnet (bett-ws023.europe.nokia.com [172.25.167.47]) by mgw-int01.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with ESMTP id n389FxX8032400 for ; Wed, 8 Apr 2009 12:15:59 +0300 From: =?utf-8?q?Andr=C3=A9_P=C3=B6nitz?= To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Implement -exec-jump Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 09:16:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.10.1 (Linux/2.6.27-9-generic; KDE/4.1.4; x86_64; ; ) References: <200904080950.16691.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200904081108.17248.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <837i1v627o.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <837i1v627o.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200904081116.41983.andre.poenitz@nokia.com> X-Nokia-AV: Clean 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/msg00144.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 08 April 2009 09:20:43 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Vladimir Prus > [...] > > 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? > > Yes, that's what I think. I disagree. From my point of view ("frontend developer") it is much more important that the mi interface works "somehow", preferably covering 100% of the CLI functionality. At worst, I have to look up the exact syntax to use in the sources. No big deal. [The opposite scenario, i.e. existing documentation, pointing to unimplemented features, is much worse, though.] Regards, Andre'