From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>,
Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: GDB 8.2 branch WEDNESDAY? (2018-07-02 update)
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2018 16:59:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <eedc8a5e-7ab3-8b75-199b-a54b57f1203b@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1530590617.29413.14.camel@skynet.be>
On 07/03/2018 05:03 AM, Philippe Waroquiers wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-07-02 at 15:12 -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>>>> * (PhilippeW) Implement 'frame apply COMMAND', enhance 'thread apply COMMAND'
>>>> v3 sent on June 24th:
>>>> https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00559.html
>>>>
>>>> At this point, it looks to me like there are still some questions
>>>> related to the new command-line interface itself, so it seems
>>>> better to give our the time to think this through. Let's keep
>>>> the pressure on, to get this patch series over the hump, but
>>>> let's also give ourselves the opportunity to observe the patch
>>>> in the master branch for a while before it makes it to a release.
>>>
>>> To my knowledge, v3 implements all what was discussed with Pedro.
>>> However, we still have a question related to the 'compatibility'
>>> between this patch and the patch
>>> Â https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2018-06/msg00170.html
>>> regarding using 'id' or 'level' to identify a frame.
>>>
>>> So, effectively, we better agree on that aspect before pushing
>>> (in the master branch then) ...
>>
>> That is indeed my main concern, and considering the proposed branching
>> date, I am thinking it might be tight to get an agreement. And if we
>> do get an agreement in time, would it make sense to wait after the
>> branch or not? I haven't followed the thread very closely, so I'll
>> defer to your judgement as well as the Pedro's.
>
> IMO, it would make sense to wait after the branch, so as to have
> time to see the 2 patches together in the master branch, and adjust
> if needed
I agree, even though I feel a little guilty that the patches are taking
so long to be reviewed. Sorry about that.
I would prefer to mature the patches on master personally, to avoid issues
with getting stuck with some user interface issue we may run into once
we get more exposure.
> But I will not too strongly object if Pedro is really keen on pushing
> it in earlier :).
I'm not. :-)
I'm downloading the v3 series to start playing with it. I'll try to
reply back soon.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-03 16:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-02 20:18 Joel Brobecker
2018-07-02 20:58 ` Philippe Waroquiers
2018-07-02 22:12 ` Joel Brobecker
2018-07-03 4:03 ` Philippe Waroquiers
2018-07-03 16:59 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2018-07-02 23:06 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=eedc8a5e-7ab3-8b75-199b-a54b57f1203b@redhat.com \
--to=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox