From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id /F7KHy0fyV8uFQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 12:23:57 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 75A831F0AB; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:23:57 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RDNS_NONE,T_DKIM_INVALID,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (unknown [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19C621E58E for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 12:23:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BD76386EC62; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 17:23:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gateway33.websitewelcome.com (gateway33.websitewelcome.com [192.185.145.9]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48E8D386EC5D for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 17:23:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 48E8D386EC5D Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tromey.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=tom@tromey.com Received: from cm14.websitewelcome.com (cm14.websitewelcome.com [100.42.49.7]) by gateway33.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B313DB7426 for ; Thu, 3 Dec 2020 11:23:53 -0600 (CST) Received: from box5379.bluehost.com ([162.241.216.53]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id ksKfk4ld6svw9ksKfket3v; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 11:23:53 -0600 X-Authority-Reason: nr=8 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tromey.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ncA6PwlmeFFVjjker/wsL7u637yX3j4ebj8kLzDqSN0=; b=J4iyH6q+2+iY6X5crBY1vpeLNV LPTIUN6+G+RaRa2JFxnONERKnAiDxEDE6sJA+u38+MijN1fM6WCCKS5daoXSWVo/iLVf03Skz9hHq MkzvMWtLuJjfgmils4h45+vkL; Received: from 97-122-89-243.hlrn.qwest.net ([97.122.89.243]:38286 helo=murgatroyd) by box5379.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1kksKe-002ipm-Nu; Thu, 03 Dec 2020 10:23:52 -0700 From: Tom Tromey To: Luis Machado via Gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] gdb: introduce new 'maint flush ' prefix command References: X-Attribution: Tom Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2020 10:23:52 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Luis Machado via Gdb-patches's message of "Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:24:25 -0300") Message-ID: <874kl2dcrb.fsf@tromey.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box5379.bluehost.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - sourceware.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tromey.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 97.122.89.243 X-Source-L: No X-Exim-ID: 1kksKe-002ipm-Nu X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: 97-122-89-243.hlrn.qwest.net (murgatroyd) [97.122.89.243]:38286 X-Source-Auth: tom+tromey.com X-Email-Count: 3 X-Source-Cap: ZWx5bnJvYmk7ZWx5bnJvYmk7Ym94NTM3OS5ibHVlaG9zdC5jb20= X-Local-Domain: yes X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" Luis> Should we keep testing the alias in some way though? I see the Luis> testcases have been updated to only use the new command. We should Luis> certify that the old ones still exist and work? I'm ok with not adding a test in this case, since it's a deprecated alias of a maintenance command. Luis> If we plan to drop the old commands at some point (I think it makes Luis> sense), we should probably mark them as deprecated with a set removal Luis> date. Definitely agreed about deprecation. We haven't normally set dates before, but it seems like a good idea. Normally deprecated things just stick around more or less forever. Tom