From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25237 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2008 18:38:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 25228 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Oct 2008 18:38:25 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:37:50 +0000 Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED3132007 for ; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.92.59] (promb-2s-dhcp59.eng.vmware.com [10.20.92.59]) by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D34D4C9A7F; Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48EFA065.5070108@vmware.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:38:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA] Resubmit, reverse debugging [0/5] References: <48EC1781.2030005@vmware.com> <48EF93A5.7060808@vmware.com> <20081010175332.GA9028@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20081010175332.GA9028@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-10/txt/msg00327.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 10:40:53AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: >> Has the discussion converged? > > I can't see that it has, but a discussion like this (especially one > with a lot of "ok, I've changed that") is very hard to follow. > > The thing that makes me the most uncomfortable, and I think Pedro too, > is the remote protocol changes. Most other things are easy to fix > later. For instance, I think that assigning magic meaning to "E06" is > a design mistake. OK, I agree -- but it's in use, in the field. Wouldn't the practice be to deprecate it, and announce the intention of removing it at some future time, rather than just suddenly take it away? I realize that it's never been in the main branch, but the folks who have it in the field (eg. Virtutech) are not to blame for that. They tried to submit their changes over two years ago. And if we're going to create a better mechanism, and deprecate this one, could that not be done in a later patch, rather than holding back this one (which has been waiting now for over 2 years)? Can we not expect to maintain and improve this functionality better once it's actually in?