From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16132 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2010 18:47:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 16124 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Dec 2010 18:47:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:47:07 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71B432BAB81; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 13:47:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id OPL+kuoHQn5H; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 13:47:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE412BACAA; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 13:47:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2A36F145B58; Sat, 4 Dec 2010 10:46:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:47:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Marc Khouzam Cc: Tom Tromey , "'gdb-patches@sourceware.org'" Subject: Re: [MI] Duplicate --thread-group flag not detected Message-ID: <20101204184638.GB3031@adacore.com> References: <20101126163842.GJ2634@adacore.com> <20101202170954.GA3031@adacore.com> 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: 2010-12/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 > > Agreed. I am also OK for the 7.2 branch, even if it's not exactly > > a critical bug. > > So, I can commit to both branches? Even without the new test? > I apologize, but I just don't have time to write new tests, because I know > that if I start, I'll make sure every case is tested, and that will take > more time than I have for a bug that is not really that important. Yes, please go ahead. Too bad for the testcase, as this means that we can potentially re-introduce the bug later on. One thing I had to learn early in my career was to not let best be the enemy of good. One test is better than none, so if you can't cover all cases but have enough time to cover one, then one is always better than none. -- Joel