From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12989 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2004 15:38:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12976 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2004 15:38:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Mar 2004 15:38:04 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.144.65]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id BMR18041; Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:37:18 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:38:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-Id: <7105-Sat20Mar2004173438+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: drow@false.org, mec.gnu@mindspring.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <405B17AB.8030205@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:54:19 -0500) Subject: Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0 Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20040318162402.A32E34B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <4059FC60.2090605@gnu.org> <20040319002701.GB25876@nevyn.them.org> <405B0BC3.70807@gnu.org> <7105-Fri19Mar2004172948+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> <405B17AB.8030205@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00482.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:54:19 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > > Er, this is what I wrote: > > > I'm objecting to: > > > >>> "Regressions since gdb 6.0" > >>> and "Regressions since gdb 5.3". If it's only the "Regressions since gdb X.Y" that you are opposed to, I don't have anything against renaming them. > > If specific problems are present in 6.1 and are going to _really_ > > hurt the user then they should be mentioned (if they happened to > > be in 6.0 as well , oops). > > > > However, we should not allow PROBLEMS to accumulate just because > > they are still present -- heavy editing is required to ensure that > > the PROBLEMS file is both relevant and focused (Several releases > > back I deleted chunks of README as, although technically correct, > > they were simply not relevant). I support these points. Your initial messages in this thread sounded like you were opposed to having in PROBLEMS entries from past releases. Sorry if I misunderstood.