Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:35:17AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Sorry, but it's hard to be sympathetic to this.  I go through this on
> a regular basis, so do other GDB contributors: it's the risk you take
> for deploying things before they're merged.  If you don't get at least
> the protocol documentation committed to the master repository, then
> this is what happens.

Fine, but we want to encourage outside contribution, don't we?
VirtuTech were the original contributors of this functionality,
(albeit they wouldn't recognize more than a line or two of code
by now, this being one of them).  Can you blame them for not
waiting two years to distribute it?  In this industry, that is
the equivalent of several lifetimes.

Can't we compromise, and be nice to them, to thank them
for the contribution?

> Speaking of documentation, is there a documentation part for the
> remote protocol changes?  I haven't seen one in the most recent patch
> set, and I don't want any new protocol extensions without docs (for
> the obvious reason).

OK, here's a patch that adds
   1) remote protocol documentation
   2) The requested extension to the 'T' reply to replace E06
   3) A big honking "deprecated" warning for E06.

Tested using gdb-freeplay.
Is this good?