From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 82847 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2019 15:37:31 -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 82833 invoked by uid 89); 15 Oct 2019 15:37:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=discover, delays, advocacy 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, 15 Oct 2019 15:37:29 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527D556085; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:37:28 -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 8XHZjGVk8wmY; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:37:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B32456083; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 11:37:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 293F4838B5; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 08:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 15:37:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Philippe Waroquiers Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB 9.1 release: Start of stabilization period ? Message-ID: <20191015153726.GC13252@adacore.com> References: <20191012191938.GA2675@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-SW-Source: 2019-10/txt/msg00425.txt.bz2 Hi Philippe, Based on the current overall feedback, I think you'll manage to get if not all, probably some of the changes you propose below. I'll keep them in my list of items to watch out for, but see also my comments below: > Here are the patches sent for review > (by order of first submission, but pointing at the last exchange): > > RFC Have an option to tell GDB to detect and possibly handle mismatched exec-files > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-09/msg00580.html We can try to keep this one in the list, but I wouldn't mark it as absolutely critical for the release. > Convenience functions $_gdb_setting/$_gdb_setting_str > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-09/msg00581.html Same idea as above, except you are saying that it's ready to push. Given what we have in the list, and the general proposal, I think you'll manage to get this one in on time. But I propose we allow ourselves to skip it if it delays the release process by an unreasonable amount of time for whatever reason. > Allow the user to define default leading args for commands and aliases > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-09/msg00583.html > > Implement 'print -raw-values' and 'set print raw-values on|off' > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-09/msg00582.html > More flexible user-defined commands prefixing and naming. > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-09/msg00588.html These is the kind of change where I think we benefit from not rushing too much. If it's ready, then great, let's have it. On the other end, it's really nice to have new features have an "observation period" in master before they make it to a release. That way, if we discover some weaknesses while using it in master, we have a chance to adjust without having to worry about user-compatibility. The story would be a bit different if you told me that a feature we just added is severly limited without it, but from what I understand, this is not the case. Same here. > And here is the advocacy to include them ... > > The first one fixes an annoying GDB behavior. > > I think the second one is now ready to push. > > The third and fourth are useful additions or complements > to the GDB 9.1 'with' and 'option framework' functionalities. > > Assuming that with the stabilisation period, there is more review > bandwidth, then the last one is nice to have :). > > Thanks > Philippe > -- Joel