Re: GDB 8.0 release/branching 2017-03-20 update

[Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:

Hi Joel,
Tim contacted me off-list that his work site will relocate at the
end of march and he will not be able to respond to mails or
work on the patches.  It may take two weeks, and I am not
sure he has been unreachable from now on.

> * [TimWiederhake] new "record" Python API should be finalized before we release
>   (otherwise, we might be have a compatibility issue if we don't design
>   them well from the start)
>
>         https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-03/msg00023.html
>
>         Looks like the discussion is still fairly active, and I am starting
>         to think that we might be putting too much pressure to get this done
>         before 8.0.
>
>         What's the status of this API? Is this something entirely new?
>         Or something that replaces an API which was already contributed?

They are new python APIs.

>         If it's a replacement, was the older API part of a previous release?
>         Looking at the NEWS file, it looks like it's something which
>         would be new. So we could decide to not rush this into 8.0,
>         and wait for 8.1, when we're more certain of the API we'd like.
>         It would also give it another 6 months of use where we can
>         easily change the API, before it's part of a release, and therefore
>         harder to change.

I've started reading this new APIs and the code since late last week.
Progress slowly as I know little about GDB python.  I gradually
understand the code, and do some experiments to make sure
my suggestions can be done.  I want to re-design the APIs, to
make them more general, less btrace specific.

I'll post my design draft tomorrow, then people can compare
the current design to mine.  If we think we need to improve the
current design, it is unlikely to get it done by 8.0.

>
> * [TimWiederhake] Build issue when using Python 2.6.x
>
>         What's the status of that patch? My questions were answered,
>         but was the patch reviewed?
>
>         https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-03/msg00053.html
>

I've already conditionally approved the patch, with a fix in
doc part, "Python 3" or "@code{Python} 3".  Tim's patch uses
the former but I suggested the latter.  Tim believes "Python 3"
should be used (off-list) so I asked Eli
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-03/msg00334.html

-- 
Yao (齐尧)