From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2371 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2009 16:56:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 2342 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2009 16:56:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-173-76-52-116.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (173.76.52.116) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:56:16 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9375113C003; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 8D2322B352; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:55:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:56:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey , Ralf Wildenhues , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Dave Korn , "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/N] The big bump Message-ID: <20090824165550.GB32267@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey , Ralf Wildenhues , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Dave Korn , "Joseph S. Myers" References: <4A86E723.3000602@gmail.com> <20090818191404.GB30961__32944.9385325008$1250622877$gmane$org@gmx.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-08/txt/msg00388.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 01:57:19PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Ralf" == Ralf Wildenhues writes: >Ralf> Thanks guys. Does anyone have an up to date git clone of the full src >Ralf> tree? If not, are there any volunteers to set one up, or can I bribe >Ralf> one? > >I don't think there is one; AFAIK there are only git trees for a couple >parts of src. > >Ralf> - parts of itcl with 2.61, >Ralf> - parts of tk and parts of tcl with 2.60a, > >My understanding is that gdb changes can be made without worrying about >the consequence to the Insight bits, because Insight is not "official" >in some way. > >I would suggest that this also applies to build infrastructure -- IMO it >would be ok for you to move forward with the main parts and fix this up >later. > >Ralf> This patch series is almost ready to go otherwise (expect to be able to >Ralf> commit this weekend), and it'd be sad to see it hostage of the lesser >Ralf> tightly maintained part of the tree. > >FWIW, I tend to agree. I know this sort of change is very difficult to >get in and I think it would be worthwhile to bend the rules a little to >make it simpler for you. I mainly agree but I'd like to know exactly what the "lesser tightly maintained part" means since that is a judgement call rather than an objective determination. cgf