From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18968 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2005 08:50:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 18755 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2005 08:50:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Apr 2005 08:50:37 -0000 Received: from zaretski (IGLD-84-228-237-143.inter.net.il [84.228.237.143]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id AZJ50708 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:50:30 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 08:50:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Stan Shebs Message-ID: <01c54197$Blat.v2.4$ae3fa180@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <425EBC8F.4030405@apple.com> (message from Stan Shebs on Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:55:11 -0700) Subject: Re: Unfinished projects Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <425EBC8F.4030405@apple.com> X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00086.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 11:55:11 -0700 > From: Stan Shebs > > Andrew's sudden departure from GDB maintenance Did he really depart? Is that departure final or just temporary, and if the latter, for how much time? > seems to left a > large number of projects in mid-process; as I'm picking through > the latest sources trying to figure out how to merge with Apple's > bits, it's very confusing as to how the new way is supposed to > work when it's not documented anywhere and there's maybe only > one example of a configuration using it. I agree with Daniel: please list the problems and issues you need to resolve, and let's deal with them one by one. > So my question is - what should we do about all these? Are > some of these intrinsically impossible to complete without > the right collection of hardware? If so, then maybe we need > to get tougher about dropping support for some targets, or > else abandon the projected change. I think we need to answer these questions on the per issue basis. > I'd like to work on updating the GDB internals manual too, for my > own understanding if nothing else; should I describe old ways, new > ways, or both? Obviously, I'd be the first to applaud the documentation effort (if you need any help, please tell). In general, I agree with Mark here: let's document the new ways, and only mention the old ones where it's important for those who convert from widely used old ways.