From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9169 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2011 17:11:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 9152 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2011 17:11:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:11:32 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBLHBHiC001527 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:11:17 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBLHBH5A002226; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:11:17 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id pBLHBFVV015593; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:11:15 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Kevin Pouget , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Python Finish Breakpoints References: <20111221065224.GA4120@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:13:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20111221065224.GA4120@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:52:24 +0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg00733.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: >> Great! I'll fix this last bits and commit it in the next few days >> Is it okay for 7.4 branch as well ? Joel> Tom asked me on IRC whether it would be OK for 7.4 as well, with Joel> some doubts on his side. With the time difference, I wasn't there Joel> anymore, so I thought I'd answer here. As always, if a Global Joel> Maintainer (such as Tom) is confident about a given patch, that's Joel> always good enough for me to put it in. Joel> I'm not sure whether Tom was asking me to look at the patch and Joel> make an evaluation myself. I skimmed the patch, and at first sight, Joel> it seems big, and slightly intrusive (in the sense that it touches Joel> several files, many of them critical to all platforms). My initial Joel> impression, which would need a more careful read of your patch Joel> to be confirmed, is that it might be a little risky to do so. Joel> Tom: Just let me know if you'd like me to look at the patch more Joel> in detail. I was thinking about it last night, and I think it is ok to go in. I think the changes outside of Python are pretty easily verified as being safe. As for the Python changes, if something is wrong in the implementation of the new code -- well, it is a new feature, I think it won't break anything existing. So, I think it is ok for 7.4. Tom