From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-62747-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 2092 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2009 07:22:52 -0000
Received: (qmail 2080 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Apr 2009 07:22:50 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout7.012.net.il (HELO mtaout7.012.net.il) (84.95.2.19)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:22:45 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout7.012.net.il by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KHR00A00TOPRB00@i-mtaout7.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:22:42 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.240.236]) by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KHR00MGETTTVKC0@i-mtaout7.012.net.il>; Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:22:42 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 07:22:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Implement -exec-jump
In-reply-to: <200904081108.17248.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
To: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <837i1v627o.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <200904080950.16691.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <838wmb63h9.fsf@gnu.org> <200904081108.17248.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-04/txt/msg00141.txt.bz2

> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:08:16 +0400
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> > It is okay to _post_ a patch for review saying that the documentation
> > patch will be _posted_ later, but actually _committing_ the code part
> > is something very different.
> 
> Is this rule documented anywhere?

I don't know, and I didn't know every request needs a documented rule.

I at least thought it was an accepted truism that we as a team don't
want undocumented features.

> Do you think having a window of time where *development version*
> has an undocumented feature that is primary targeted at *frontend developers*
> is worse than not having that feature at all?

Yes, that's what I think.