From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7811 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2015 08:16:56 -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 7800 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jan 2015 08:16:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout20.012.net.il Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 08:16:53 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NIB00000AN3Z500@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 10:16:51 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NIB000STB02QG70@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 17 Jan 2015 10:16:51 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 08:16:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for embedding scripts in .debug_gdb_scripts. In-reply-to: To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <8361c5254p.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83ppaf3oe6.fsf@gnu.org> <83egqu1u69.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00494.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 17:15:49 -0800 > From: Doug Evans > Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" > > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:01 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > So we have no hope for ever fixing past mistakes? > > Past mistakes? > .debug_gdb_scripts isn't that old of a feature. I wasn't talking only about that. I was talking in general about the argument "we do this elsewhere 'like this', so let's continue doing that 'like this'". For example, the "NUL" thingie. > Maybe we need more formal community-agreed-on > conventions and rules for NEWS and docs. Maybe we should, but I'd like first to agree that an argument of this kind doesn't have too much weight. It's okay to look at past practices when the choice is purely stylistic. But when there are clear advantages to deviating from past practices, those past practices shouldn't hold us back, otherwise we will stagnate. Agreed? In this case, "NUL" is simply incorrect English: there's no such word or acronym. The only legitimate use of "NUL" I know of is in reference to the DOS/Windows null device. As for showing the systems where .debug_gdb_scripts feature is supported, there are clear advantages to providing that information in NEWS, and the price is quite low, I hope you will agree. I can also live with you asking me in response to please change all the other instances to use the same style. But what I would prefer not to live with is flat refusal to make a requested change in your patch because "we do that elsewhere". > These things seem to be of a "shall be this way" flavor, > and I wasn't expecting that. Isn't that normal during patch review process? > When I cut-n-paste from code I can usually > tell what's expected, but I can't do that for NEWS/doc, >From experience, my requests are remarkably consistent, even if the same issues pop up with quite some time in-between. You've just cited a similar discussion about NUL from more than a year ago, which I didn't event remember. > [Imagine if coding conventions changed like this.] They do, because standards.texi is actively maintained. Things I've read and memorized years ago have changed, sometimes radically so, and I keep bumping into them when people say my code isn't according to GCS and cite from there. That's life, and I accept it.