From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16328 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2003 14:58:26 -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 16321 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2003 14:58:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2003 14:58:25 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18lu2e-0000jf-00; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:59:24 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18ls9R-0007Vd-00; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:58:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:58:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Zaretskii Eli Cc: Daniel Berlin , Elena Zannoni , Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process Message-ID: <20030220145817.GA28816@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Zaretskii Eli , Daniel Berlin , Elena Zannoni , Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <4D19136444628A40840EFE8C5AE04147017A44@ELTIMAIL1.elta.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D19136444628A40840EFE8C5AE04147017A44@ELTIMAIL1.elta.co.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00404.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:55:21AM +0200, Zaretskii Eli wrote: > > This message was scanned for viruses and other malicious code by PrivaWall. > > > This mail was sent from ELTA SYS LTD. > > > > From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dberlin@dberlin.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 3:24 PM > > > > > I guess I just don't see this to be as much of a problem as others > do. > > > For one thing, with the higher entropy level, more development > actually > > > happens. > > Bingo. > > I don't think we should stall development (and in the > > extreme, even if > > it means we can't make quality releases any day of the year) because > > mistakes occasionally happen in patches, or because not every > > maintainer in existence has said something about a patch. That's a > > recipe for no progress. > > For some definition of ``progress''. > > Who said that adding code at a faster rate at the price of having more > bugs is more ``progress'' than what we have now? There are people out > there who need GDB to actually do something _useful_, not just to debug > and/or develop GDB itself, you know. What about frustration of those > GDB users when their favorite feature is broken by some > committed-before-review patch that adds a hot new feature? Does that > ever count? I wouldn't have suggested this if I really thought that would happen. > Does anyone remember that latest GCC releases are practically unusable > for any production-quality work due to bugs? Does anyone even care? And for the record, while I'd say that was true for 3.0, it was _not_ true for 3.1 or 3.2 or 3.2.1/3.2.2, which I consider production quality compilers; and it won't be true for 3.3 either. > Of course, if contributors are frustrated by the slow review rate, let's > try to improve that (see my other mail). But let's not obscure our view > of the problem by discussing abstract issues of ``progress''. An > official release every 3 months is more than enough progress for my > taste. Not if there's nothing much new in it. Which is a bit of an exaggeration, before anyone calls me on it - but still pretty well expresses my point. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer