Re: CLI and GDB/MI documentation patch

Eli Zaretskii
2006-05-12T13:56:19Z

> Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:49:40 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 10:53:43AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here, exactly.
> > Explaining why we did something in the past does not belong in the
> > manual (except maybe in a footnote, if it is _very_ important to
> > mention history).
>
> While I agree about "why", I think "what" we did in the past does
> belong in the manual in some cases. Not so much for the CLI, which is
> covered by most of the manual, but for the remote protocol and GDB/MI
> where most everyone interested in them will be interested in supporting
> multiple versions of GDB...

In general, if some external package needs to support multiple GDB
versions, their authors will need to look in the manuals of those
older versions.

In those cases where it is very important, the "what" should be in a
@footnote.

This reminds me: perhaps we should mention major incompatible changes
in NEWS, suitably marked to the effect that they break backward
compatibility.