From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14751 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2016 12:34:19 -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 14741 invoked by uid 89); 26 Jan 2016 12:34:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=stake, Hx-languages-length:2237, award, culture X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:34:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDA04116914; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 07:34:16 -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 V886-EFT83AF; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 07:34:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E571116901; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 07:34:16 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6FF0240C2A; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:34:12 +0400 (RET) Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 12:34:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Yao Qi Cc: Keven Boell , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fort_dyn_array: add basic fortran dyn array support Message-ID: <20160126123412.GI5146@adacore.com> References: <20150721180502.GN7406@adacore.com> <55C213C7.7070202@linux.intel.com> <20150805202301.GB14992@adacore.com> <51130.172.28.205.135.1438861308.squirrel@linux.intel.com> <20150820125159.GD4571@adacore.com> <5617A6FB.4050407@linux.intel.com> <86oacgsgdx.fsf@gmail.com> <56A1D8CD.3040905@linux.intel.com> <20160122124050.GG5146@adacore.com> <86y4bhr5z8.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86y4bhr5z8.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00648.txt.bz2 > The reviewing efforts shouldn't justify keeping something in GDB, which > breaks tests at the beginning. Patches are reviewed in the scope of > reviewers' knowledge and experience, so nobody knows the effects of > patches on the complicated software, such as GDB, on some certain env. > It is reasonable to me that patches still cause regressions after > several rounds of careful reviews, but it doesn't mean we should take > them in source tree. I hesitated before mentioning the review effort spent on this, and now I see that I shouldn't have. You are right, the review itself should not justify one way or the other what to do with the patch. However,... > They are fails of tests for the new feature, so they aren't > regressions. It could be compiler issues, of course. [...] > In short, I am not strongly against this patch as it doesn't cause > critical problem, and I can live up with it. However, it would be nice > to revert it. I cannot understand why you think that way. If this is just an issue of a new feature whose implementation has bugs, and no evidence that it is impacting something else, why would you recommend that we revert the patch? If we were to revert, no one would be able to use the new feature; but if we keep it, at least a few people will be able to enjoy the work that has been done so far. I don't have a stake in the feature itself, but I disagree on the logic behind proposing the revert. That being said, this is *my* reasoning, and I don't want to argue too much to avoid creating a culture of "once it is in, it is very hard to revert". I'd rather we be revert-easy than the opposite. It would help if others weighed in on this, as I will accept the choice of the majority. > "A feature which is omitted can always be added later, when its design > and its implications are well understood. A feature which is included > before it is fully understood can never be removed later." > > -- C.A.R. Hoare, The Emperor's Old Clothes, 1980 Turing Award Lecture Does not apply here, IMO, because the syntac is dictated by the language, and it's not going to change. The only thing we can do is fix the bugs we find. -- Joel