From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20871 invoked by alias); 19 Feb 2003 16:31:11 -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 20864 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2003 16:31:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 19 Feb 2003 16:31:11 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18lZ0x-0006bd-00 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:32:15 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18lX7k-0001ti-00 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:31:08 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:31:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process Message-ID: <20030219163107.GB7191@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20030218042847.50F2E3CE5@localhost.redhat.com> <3E53AE7B.4090401@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E53AE7B.4090401@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00353.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 19, 2003 at 11:19:07AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >ac131313@redhat.com (Andrew Cagney) writes: > > > >>> Some noticeable differences between these two models: > >>> - In the GCC model, more people are able/likely to check in patches > >>which > >>> break things. > >>> - But in the GCC model, more people are able/likely to check in > >>patches to > >>> fix it afterwards. > > > >> > >>(ROFL.) > >> > >>The GCC model involves a number of development phases and the above > >>comments would only relate to one of those phases. At other times > >>increasingly strict controls are placed on what can be > >>committed/approved. The GCC group spend a significant (out of > >>control?) amount of their time trying to re-stablize GCC for their > >>releases. > >> > >>For GDB, on the other hand, interesting development can and does get > >>approved/committed at any time. GDB snaps are of such quality that we > >>can confidently refer someone to current sources for fixes (except > >>when I have a bad day like today :-). Further, instead of using > >>official releases (and as you yourself have done) arbitrary snaps can > >>even make their way into a distro. > > > > > >The problem is, being that stable has a cost associated with it. GCC > >pays that cost at certain parts in their cycle; we pay that cost all > >the time, every day. > > GDB is less stable then you might think. Right now while both: > > - interps > - frame > > are causing problems they are not getting in the way of DavidC's dwarf2 > stuff (gee wiz, both my doing :-/). GDB always builds, gdb always > `break main; run'. Is that too much to ask? Of course not. If someone breaks that, they (or we) fix it quickly. GCC's no different. > The problem with GDB's stability is that allows people to quickly forget: > > - what it is like with out it > - how much gain there is from it > - how relatively small the pain > - how much more expensive it is to have to re-do something later > - how, with a bit of peer revew, problematic code could have been done > right the first time (and how much that fallout costs). I don't see where any of this is coming from. As you point out above, in a lot of respects GDB isn't all that stable. What are we risking here? It also seems that Jim and I don't agree that the gain outweighs the pain. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer