Re: [PATCH 1/4] GDBSERVER: Listen on a unix domain (instead of TCP) socket if requested.

Sergio Durigan Junior
2018-10-29T16:42:46Z

On Monday, October 29 2018, John Darrington wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 03:51:55PM +0000, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2018-10-29 5:11 a.m., Rainer Orth wrote:
> > Hi John,
> >
> >> However I've checked in a fix for this issue, and tested it by building
> >> natively with a hacked set of standard include headers.
> >
> > you always need to post patches here, if only for reference.
>
> Doesn't that make the gdb-cvs list completely redundant?
>
> Not only should you post here the patches you push as obvious, but I don't
> think that this:
>
> https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=98a17ece013cb94cd602496b9efb92b8816b3953
>
> falls under the obvious rule:
>
> But a number of people had complained that their build was broken, and
> this was a fix for that. I judged that in consideration of those
> people fixding their problem was more important than strict observance
> of protocol.
>
> I can't judge whether the patch is right or not with a quick glance, but it
> certainly is complex enough to warrant a discussion (as Rainer's reply below
> shows).
>
>
> Additionally, it seems like the initial 4-patch series was pushed without
> explicit approval from a maintainer (at least I can't find any). Next time,
> please wait to have an approval before pushing. If you are not sure whether
> a reply constitutes an a approval, it's better to ask the maintainer to
> clarify.
>
> All of those patches were certainly discussed. In the past, when I've
> followed up a person who has commented on a patch, but been vague about
> approval, I have had either a piqued response; or no response at all.

We were certainly discussing the patches, but they were not approved by
anyone. It's also worth mentioning that I raised various points that
were not addressed (even though we discussed them). It is still a
requirement that the patches need to be approved by at least one
maintainer before it is pushed to the repository.

> If you think it necesary however I can revert anything you think hasn't
> had enough discussion.

Yes, please. The patch series is not ready to be pushed yet; there are
a bunch of points I raised that were not addressed (and are now causing
the failures). I am not a global maintainer, but it is my opinion that
the patch series should be reverted for now. We can continue discussing
and fixing things with it here in the list.

Thanks,

--
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible