From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1942 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2014 18:10:51 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 1929 invoked by uid 89); 1 Oct 2014 18:10:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 01 Oct 2014 18:10:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s91IAhvI029914 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 1 Oct 2014 14:10:44 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (ovpn-112-17.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.112.17]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s91IAfGe025697; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 14:10:42 -0400 Message-ID: <542C43A1.7050503@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 18:10:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: Paul Koning , gdb-patches Subject: Re: Why do functions objfpy_new and pspy_new exist? References: <5423E9C7.3060202@redhat.com> <54248505.7030809@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-10/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 On 25/09/14 23:07, Doug Evans wrote: >> >> >> I really don't disagree with you Paul. But we have to prove >> plausible, and perhaps wait until someone turns up and says "oh I have >> this plausible scenario". Perhaps a patch to gdb-patches and a >> suitable wait is OK, (though I am not sure GDB Python users read that >> list). It is, trust me, a frequent frustration for me to add >> yet-another-keyword-while-preserving-original-behavior, especially >> with the Python 2.x and 3.x as well. It is, I think, becoming >> impossible to manage. >> >> I don't have an objection beyond does this break the API promise. >> That's all I care about. I did not make that promise -- these >> decisions were made before my time. But I think we should uphold it. >> Maybe if GDB future releases requires only Python 3.x in future we can >> amend that. > > I know I've mentioned this before, but since the topic has come up again, > I think GDB could have a formal deprecation process that would allow > us to remove things we'd like to remove (this is for API-like things > which are harder to remove than, e.g., outdated ports). > > For the case at hand, as a strawman proposal, what if we add to 7.9 a > proposal to remove the non-useful functionality with a note saying > that if no one presents a compelling case for keeping it then it will > be removed 5 releases later (or some such). 2.5 years feels long > enough for this. I can imagine choosing a longer or short amount of > time depending on what's being deprecated. The point is there's a > process and we use it to clean up GDB. > > [This is simpler than the general one I have in mind. > I'm just throwing out the idea to see if it sticks. :-)] > > Also, we could have a moratorium on adding more tp_new methods that > don't have a use-case. > That we can do today. That sounds like a plausible plan. The next step is documenting it in the wiki and/or other places. Cheers Phil