From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31344 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2005 22:11:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 31318 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2005 22:11:16 -0000 Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:11:16 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-228-164-161.inter.net.il [84.228.164.161]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CZU16413 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:11:05 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 01:17:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Michael Snyder CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <437E4335.2090509@redhat.com> (message from Michael Snyder on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:10:13 -0800) Subject: Re: [RFA] Add new command class_experimental Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <437E38CA.1040300@redhat.com> <437E4335.2090509@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00353.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:10:13 -0800 > From: Michael Snyder > CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > Hmm... I'm not sure I like this idea. Why not add these as normal > > commands? If it's useful and stable enough, people will use it. As > > for possible bugs, the non-experimental stuff has those too. > > Well, because we *don't* regard it as stable. If it is stable enough to go on HEAD (as opposed to a branch, which is where we try out experimental ideas), it should be good enough to be treated as a normal command, I think. That is, if someone reports a bug that causes it to crash or produce badly incorrect results, we will work to fix that, right?