From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-19054-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 10745 invoked by alias); 29 Sep 2002 21:46:17 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 10732 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2002 21:46:15 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Sep 2002 21:46:15 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 53D3B3D88; Sun, 29 Sep 2002 17:46:06 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3D97749E.9020306@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 14:46:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch rfa:doco rfc:NEWS] mi1 -> mi2; rm mi0
References: <3D974315.2050201@redhat.com> <20020929195533.GA5967@nevyn.them.org> <3D97603F.7080906@redhat.com> <20020929213757.GA9950@nevyn.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00728.txt.bz2

> On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 04:19:11PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>> >On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 02:14:45PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>> >
> 
>> >>Hello,
>> >>
>> >>The attached patch updates things so that "mi2" is the default MI 
>> >>syntax.  I need to add a mechanism so that the MI code can query the 
>> >>version but I'll post that separatly.
>> >>
>> >>It modifies NEWS (comments?).
>> >>It updates the doco (ok?).
>> >>
>> >>Andrew
> 
>> >
>> >
>> >It seems to me that this is going about everything backwards.
>> >
>> >There isn't an mi2 yet, is there?
> 
>> 
>> Actually, I think "mi2" changes have been sneeking through for a while. 
>>  The attached, for instance, modifies [fixes] a commands output in a 
>> way that isn't backward compatible.
> 
> 
> Are you planning to revert mi1 then?

Que?

Andrew