From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8425 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2009 07:36:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 8405 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Apr 2009 07:36:17 -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 07:36:13 +0000 Received: (qmail 13298 invoked from network); 8 Apr 2009 07:36:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wind.localnet) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 8 Apr 2009 07:36:11 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Implement -exec-jump Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:36:00 -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> <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="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200904081136.09957.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/msg00142.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 08 April 2009 11:20:43 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Vladimir Prus > > 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