From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6896 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2003 19:49:49 -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 6889 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2003 19:49:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Oct 2003 19:49:48 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79DF2B89; Wed, 8 Oct 2003 15:49:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F846A55.2050809@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 19:49:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Michael Snyder Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> <16260.19698.165606.470200@localhost.redhat.com> <3F845FA9.8010001@redhat.com> <20031008190726.GB13579@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00250.txt.bz2 > On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 03:04:09PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> >This is certainly the right direction. We have discussed this in very >> >general terms (I believe at the gcc conference), but I don't remember >> >a discussion on the gdb lists. Since this seems quite a big rewrite (I >> >am not sure, I just saw all this stuff appearing at once), how about >> >using the branching approach? It has worked well for a few features now. > >> >> Honestly, yes. As core maintainers we should be willing to do as we ask. > > > I don't ask for people to use branches, because it's a bloody nuisance. > Once all patches have gone onto a branch, reproducing a series of > logically contained patches that are small enough to be acceptable to > the GDB Gods is an additional week or month of work. I prefer when > possible to do work in increments, on mainline. I agree, instead prefering a steady sequence of incremental change. > Having been asked twice to use a branch I'll investigate it. Not for > these patches, however, which are designed to be non-behavior-changing > cleanups. Thanks for clarifying this. Andrew