From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 78933 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2017 13:28:00 -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 78908 invoked by uid 89); 21 Mar 2017 13:28:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=compromise, Hx-languages-length:658, H*MI:sk:LJruQa1, H*f:sk:s-PO1m6 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 ESMTP; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:27:59 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9C015639A; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:27:58 -0400 (EDT) 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 FVazvF3ettTd; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:27:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BEFF56394; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:27:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DF866607FE; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 06:27:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 13:28:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Yao Qi Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Nitish Kumar Mishra , Tremblay , Keith Seitz , "Wiederhake, Tim" Subject: Re: GDB 8.0 release/branching 2017-03-20 update Message-ID: <20170321132756.b5glicy6nxqs3gxq@adacore.com> References: <20170320201629.pbjzaqsnvs7dx7f2@adacore.com> <20170320225240.mlb6no7eyxibyomr@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2-neo (2016-08-21) X-SW-Source: 2017-03/txt/msg00367.txt.bz2 > > Since they are new, and we're still deep in the design phase, > > I think it is more reasonable to branch without them. The worse > > What do you mean by "branch without them"? These patches > were reviewed and committed on Feb. I didn't have a chance > reading the patches, until recently I want to use these python > APIs to measure the performance/speed of reverse debugging. I misunderstood when you said they were new, and thought nothing had been checked in yet. But I see that you're now proposing we temporary back them out, which I agree is probably the best compromise, at this point. -- Joel