From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6897 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2012 13:59:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 6881 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Sep 2012 13:59:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:59:28 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1TBnTT-00052b-31 from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:59:27 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:59:27 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 06:59:26 -0700 Message-ID: <50509515.3040405@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 13:59:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: Stan Shebs , Subject: Re: [RFC] Merge mi-cli.exp and mi2-cli.exp References: <1346419770-5718-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <50469CDA.1030406@earthlink.net> <504F5592.6000102@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <504F5592.6000102@redhat.com> 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: 2012-09/txt/msg00198.txt.bz2 On 09/11/2012 11:15 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > So my opinion is that we revisit the policy a bit, and backtrack a the > mi-.*exp vs mi2-.*exp idea, get rid of the duplication, and call everything > "MI2", as it is in practice (must be, because that's how we run the tests). > When we really introduce an incompatible change that actually justifies MI3, > _then_ we should revisit the policy of whether to mass copying/rename tests, or > share them, depending on how big the difference between the versions would be, > and therefore depending on the practicality of the different options. > > As is, the double testing seems just pointless to me. Agreed. -- Yao