From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32383 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2008 22:30:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 32372 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jul 2008 22:30:00 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:29:33 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (98.61.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.61.98]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F82E3DAD3C; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:29:30 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E5EE38FC6D; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:29:28 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18550.36167.750049.805236@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:30:00 -0000 To: Stan Shebs Cc: Andrew Cagney , Paul Koning , mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Move GDB to C++ ? In-Reply-To: <48767F78.8060806@earthlink.net> References: <487658F7.1090508@earthlink.net> <200807101901.m6AJ1UMQ007185@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <48766A88.1050402@earthlink.net> <18550.27427.430241.185251@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <48767395.7080905@gnu.org> <48767F78.8060806@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.2.50.3 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-07/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 > It's certainly an approach worth thinking about. Presumably the point of > working in a different directory is that the code might be expected to > be broken or nonportable for a period of time, but when that happens you > can run afoul of limited commitment levels, with people only able to > work on gdbxx when they don't have regular gdb tasks. If everyone is > forced into the same straitj^Wsource tree, dealing with mid-transition > brokenness is (usually :-) ) justifiable as part of the job. Mid-transition brokenness only seems justifiable if there is unanimous agreement that the transition is desirable. Imposing a change on people who may not want it and then telling them that have to put up with the ensuing brokeness, or fix it, seems quite unreasonable, expecially to those who have contributed to it's previous state. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob