Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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
>>>   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


  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