From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30920 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 17:16:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30887 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 17:15:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 17:15:58 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E47D3D26; Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:15:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CC6E84D.2090403@cygnus.com> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:16:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stan Shebs Cc: "David S. Miller" , drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: which patches to review References: <20020422.224035.88562706.davem@redhat.com> <15557.29643.263642.453067@localhost.redhat.com> <20020423105459.A8292@nevyn.them.org> <20020423.220943.39181580.davem@redhat.com> <3CC6D4E2.E5858735@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00952.txt.bz2 Please remember, GDB isn't GCC, is it Linux Kernel list. > One of the differences I notice with GCC is that there is less > agonizing over every detail of every patch. When I put the basic > Darwin support into GCC, the files actually carried along some > crufty dead code inherited from old NeXT stuff, but since it only > affected Darwin, nobody worried about it (since then most of it > has been whacked). There have been other patches that were brave > attempts, and looked good at first sight, but that didn't last a > week and had to be reverted. No biggie, that's just a normal > part of the development process. Here, you're mistaken. GDB has (fairly clearly) communicated standards and provided they are met, the new port just drops in. They don't get thrown into limbo because a two month feature freeze. They don't get wedged because the toolchain won't build for three weeks. They are even, typically, get pulled into release branches. Its kind of ironic that while all this flaming has been going on, a brand new port of gdb (ALPHA/NetBSD) has just been dropped into place. A second target port, AVR is about ready to go (I got a panic attack and need to go back the assignments clerk.) otherwize it, again, will drop into place. The AVR port will likely even be pulled into the 5.2 branch as soon as 5.2 is released. > Another thing I notice with GCC is that while there is a wish > list for future development directions, patches are usually not > held hostage to that list. It's OK for instance to wish that a > contributor would multi-arch an old macro instead of submitting > yet another use of it, but if the contributor doesn't want to do > that, take the patch anyway and worry about multi-arching later. Again, you are mistaken. GDB developers approve patches with ``please create a bug report'' and please include a FIXME... However, they do also ensure that, to best code (in a pragmatic sense) goes in. Have you recently looked in the bug database? Or to look at it another way, we no longer screw up with things like the HP Merge. enjoy, Andrew