Re: [patch] Deprecate XM_FILE and TM_FILE

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>]

Joel, I almost lost this (hideing at the end of a thread) :-(

Can you re-post with a new thread/subject to gdb@.  I've thoughts but 
I'd prefer to post them there :-)

Perhaps attatch eli's e-mail, or Eli, could you re-post your comments there?

Andrew

>>> I've split this patch in two and committed just the TM_FILE stuff.  As 
>>> for the XM_FILE changes (and those 3 definitions), consider that tabled.
> 
> 
> It seems to me that the whole discussion between Eli and yourself has
> been beaten to death. We're basically stuck in a disagrement where both
> point of views have their merit.
> 
> I think it's time all global maintainers get involved in this discussion
> and make a decision. Once the decision is taken, it needs to be
> documented (gdb.texinfo for instance) so that people can refer to it.
> 
> As a developper, I personally dislike to have to check the ARI everytime
> I use anything in GDB for fear of using something deprecated. So marking
> each instance as explicitly deprecated directly in the code is a good
> move. Two questions were asked and need to be answered. I am adding my
> proposed answers, as a starting point for your discussion:
> 
>   1. When can some code be declared deprecated?
> 
>      IMO, some code should be declared deprecated when it has been
>      recognized that it should no longer be used in new changes.
>      It means that some code can be identified as deprecated before
>      a replacement has been implemented.
> 
>      There is a judgement call to make, obviously, as we don't want to
>      deprecate a central piece of GDB that makes it impossible for
>      somebody to submit a new port for instance without doing man-years
>      of work required to implement an alternate to the deprecated
>      feature.
> 
>   2. How to identify deprecated code?
> 
>      Deprecated code should be explicitly marked as such directly
>      in the code, to avoid any accidental future usage, by prepending
>      "depreated_" to the entity names.
>      
>      Deprecated code can only be removed when no longer used. There can
>      be no time limit imposed between the time some code is deprecated,
>      and the time when it is removed.
> 
>      (the alternate solution suggested by Eli is the ARI)
> 
> You should decide how the discussion will be held (privately or on
> gdb-patches?), and whether it should include the steering committee
> or not.
> 
> Happy discussion.
> 
> -- Joel