Re: Implement -exec-jump

[Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>]

On Wednesday 08 April 2009 11:20:43 Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> > Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:08:16 +0400
> > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> > 
> > > 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?
> 
> I don't know, and I didn't know every request needs a documented rule.

I believe that a development process that is based on a list of documented
rules or guidelines is in general more smooth, than one that relies on
ad-hoc requests.

> I at least thought it was an accepted truism that we as a team don't
> want undocumented features.

I though there's "in a published release" somewhere in the above statement.

> > 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 am 100% sure that both the person who filed the issue this patch
has fixed, and every single frontend developer, will disagree. And that's
why it would be best to have documented rules -- so that those rules can
be established once and we would not spend any more time discussing them.
(Even if such established rules increase an already-high overhead of GDB
hacking to the degree where I won't be able to fix such small bugs).

- Volodya