From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5101 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2002 15:03:58 -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 5094 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2002 15:03:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2002 15:03:55 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC5C3CB7; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 11:03:55 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D9867DB.4010607@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 08:03:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney 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 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> <3D97749E.9020306@redhat.com> <20020930045522.GA28510@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00748.txt.bz2 >> > >> >Are you planning to revert mi1 then? > >> >> Que? > > > "mi2" changes have been sneaking in. Are you planning to revert them - > create an "mi1" which matches what mi1 actually was. It's a bit late for that. Someone should audit the changes made so far and identify which caused syntax changes and update accordingly. Fixes could, perhaphs be pushed into 5.3 (but I don't have the time). > Otherwise, where is the line drawn to mark the interface version as > final? It seems to me that the default shouldn't be evolving, that > -i=mi should default to a fixed point until the next version is > running. I think a line is drawn when each release is made. I'd expect an MI client to explicitly specify -i=miN (where N was formally released) rather than trust -i=mi. However, should the HEAD hold off on recognizing -i=mi2 until the next branch is cut? On the HEAD, -i=mi evolves by definition. However, -i=mi2 is evolving as well :-( Andrew