From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18967 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2004 16:21:39 -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 18937 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2004 16:21:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao06.cox.net) (68.230.240.33) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 30 Sep 2004 16:21:35 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.04 201-2131-111-106-20040729) with ESMTP id <20040930162133.QGJU23642.lakermmtao06.cox.net@white>; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:21:33 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CD3gU-0000hP-00; Thu, 30 Sep 2004 12:21:34 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 16:21:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: jingham@apple.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com Subject: Re: MI rules Message-ID: <20040930162134.GA2271@white> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , jingham@apple.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com References: <1095954341.19418.ezmlm@sources.redhat.com> <20040925010519.GB3379@white> <4E6C7AD8-0F25-11D9-AD7A-000D932CB92C@apple.com> <20040925201242.GA4133@white> <1AB1A5F6-10AC-11D9-8F3A-000A958F4C44@apple.com> <20040929025959.GA357@white> <01c4a6f0$Blat.v2.2.2$cc707360@zahav.net.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01c4a6f0$Blat.v2.2.2$cc707360@zahav.net.il> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 03:23:19PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 22:59:59 -0400 > > From: Bob Rossi > > Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com, ezannoni@redhat.com, > > fnasser@redhat.com > > > > I have one quick note. I would prefer to get some cooperation with the > > MI maintainers. I seriously need this cooperation in order to get > > anything done with CGDB. Also, I consider the work I am doing necessary > > for any front end developer to be able to write a reasonable front end > > without having to heavily patch a version of GDB they distribute with. > > > > If you consider my goal worthy, please at least respond with some > > reasonable criticism so that these issues can be resolved. I feel that in > > many ways my views on the MI are mostly ignored by the MI maintainers. > > Out of those who are marked in MAINTAINERS as "MI maintainers" you can > probably hope to get response only from Andrew, and Andrew has lots of > other responsibilities and things to do. So I'm not surprised you > feel the way you do. I'm glad this is understood. My question is, why do they other maintainers not "maintain"? Or is responding to the community not part of being a maintainer? > However, the issues you worry about need not wait for the ``MI > maintainers'' to respond, quite a few (if not most) of them are > general enough to be discussed with all the global maintainers, some > of whom are more responsive. OK, I appreciate this advice. > So I'd suggest to restructure the discussion so that more people could > give you feedback. Speaking for myself, one of the more significants > reasons that all but prevent my participation in the threads you start > is that messages are very long, mix many different issues, and include > both general concerns, such as MI syntax backwards compatibility, and > low-level details, such as minor grammar optimizations. (And on top > of that, top-post style makes the messages even longer and harder to > read for someone who, like myself, has only a couple dozen minutes on > a random day to read them.) I appreciate you pointing this out. In retrospect I can see that I am not bringing up one problem at a time. I will attempt to change this from here on in. Thanks for the advice. > So how about if you start several separate threads, one each about a > specific MI issue out of those which are general enough for the global > maintainers to participate? For example, this list: > > > 1. Can the mainline version get tagged asyncronous commands at the least? > > I would prefer every command to have a tag. > > > > 2. Can there be a discussion about backwards compatibility with MI > > output commands. This involves several issues I can think of. > > 1. removing fields from an MI output command > > 2. changing the output of an MI output command > > 3. Making the commands themselves be backwards compatible even > > between major releases. This essentially makes the MI output version > > useless. > > already includes 2 separate issues that don't require too much > MI-specific knowledge for any global maintainer to give you feedback. > If you make the issues visible at the beginning, rather than buried at > an end of a longish message, and keep different issues separate, I > think we will have more hope to come to a consensus enough for you to > craft a patch that has good chances to be accepted. I will do this. I really appreciate your feedback. It is impossible for me to self-correct the way I approach the mailing list, I first need to know that there are problems. Thanks. Bob Rossi