Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>,
	David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] convert blocks to dictionaries, phase 1, main part
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:13:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <vt23cs4r6td.fsf@zenia.red-bean.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3D87874F.8010603@ges.redhat.com>


Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com> writes:
> > That's not the point.  That's why I suggested a branch which does
> > require approval, precisely so that we wouldn't get into that problem.
> > But you don't seem to like that idea, so it's dead.
> 
> Me not liking an idea doesn't kill it.  It is the symtab maintainers,
> and not me that would do the review and hence, they and not me would
> need to be ok with it.

I don't know how Elena feels, but I generally defer to Andrew's
judgement in these sorts of things.

I'd suggest the following process:

- Get things working on a branch.  That is, produce a branch on which
  namespaces actually work --- the block -> dictionary conversion
  isn't enough.  This branch will never be merged directly; it's dead
  code.

- You'll almost certainly find some small messes which can be cleaned
  up indepenently of any other work.  These can be submitted for
  inclusion in the main sources as you go.

- You'll also probably learn some things that you'll wish you had
  known when you started.  But the design backtracking won't happen in
  the public sources --- it'll happen on your dead branch.

  Backtracking is hard enough in pristine code.  If you're
  simultaneously trying to break the change into incremental steps,
  I imagine the backtracking will be even more difficult.

- Once you've got it working, the way it really should, then you can
  decide how to submit it.  At that point, you'll have better ideas
  about how to approach this.  If some of the patches are large, so be
  it.

The downside about this process is that it looks like you do the work
twice: on the branch, and then again in the public sources.  But I
think that is partly an illusion.  What actually takes time in these
situations isn't the typing: it's the research (figuring out how the
damned thing works), and the backtracking (oh, this can't support
`using namespace' directives, we've got to do it another way).  The
"second time", when you're working from tested, running code, goes
much faster.


  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-09-20 16:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-09-16 15:26 David Carlton
2002-09-16 15:30 ` David Carlton
2002-09-17  7:35 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-09-17  9:03   ` Andrew Cagney
2002-09-17 10:43   ` David Carlton
2002-09-17 10:49     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-09-17 11:34       ` David Carlton
2002-09-17 12:24         ` Andrew Cagney
2002-09-17 11:44       ` Andrew Cagney
2002-09-17 12:30         ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-09-17 12:49           ` Andrew Cagney
2002-09-17 13:32             ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-09-17 21:48             ` Daniel Berlin
2002-09-18  7:26               ` Andrew Cagney
2002-09-20  9:13             ` Jim Blandy [this message]
2002-09-17 12:59         ` Daniel Berlin
2002-09-17 13:13           ` Andrew Cagney
2002-09-17  9:29 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-09-17 11:04   ` David Carlton
2002-09-17 12:16     ` Andrew Cagney
2002-09-17 12:35       ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-09-17 12:46       ` David Carlton
2002-09-17 12:57         ` Andrew Cagney
2002-09-22 14:51           ` Jim Blandy
2002-09-17 12:54       ` Michael Snyder
2002-09-17 12:59       ` Daniel Berlin
2002-09-18  2:56       ` Richard Earnshaw
2002-09-18 14:07         ` Andrew Cagney
2002-09-19  3:14           ` Richard Earnshaw
2002-09-19  6:18             ` Elena Zannoni
2002-09-19  7:52               ` Richard Earnshaw
2002-09-19  7:51             ` Andrew Cagney
2002-09-22 14:41       ` Jim Blandy

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=vt23cs4r6td.fsf@zenia.red-bean.com \
    --to=jimb@redhat.com \
    --cc=ac131313@ges.redhat.com \
    --cc=carlton@math.stanford.edu \
    --cc=drow@mvista.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /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