From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19160 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2013 08:02:11 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 19147 invoked by uid 89); 2 Dec 2013 08:02:10 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 08:02:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rB281wl3032732 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 2 Dec 2013 03:01:58 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-70.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.70]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rB281rZI026941 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Dec 2013 03:01:56 -0500 Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 08:02:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Philippe Waroquiers , Doug Evans Subject: Re: status update for GDB 7.7? Message-ID: <20131202080153.GA14906@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20131202035637.GQ3114@adacore.com> <20131202073623.GA13911@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20131202074920.GT3114@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20131202074920.GT3114@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00019.txt.bz2 On Mon, 02 Dec 2013 08:49:20 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote: > (1) Defer the patch for the next release, hoping there will be > more time to look into the new ideas? > > (2) Or defer the release while waiting for someone to find that > time? > > (3) Commit the patch as is, and defer the new improvement for > later? also possibly: (4) Commit the fix and defer the testcase for improvement later. > IIUC, the patch is > OK, but blocked because we could do better in the testcase? Yes. > Or did a small issue in the testcase raise a bigger issue? It raised a bigger issue but completely unrelated to the fix under test. Regards, Jan