Re: Bob's MI objective

[Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>]

On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 01:41:50PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2004 22:32:43 -0400
> > From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
> > 
> > >    * I would like to know what GDB's policy is in regards to supporting old
> > >      MI protocols.  ( I have received several opposing views on this )
> > 
> > A new way to phrase this would be, for a given release of GDB (not a CVS
> > snapshot), does that release support one MI protocol, or does it support
> > several MI protocols. The MI protocols need to be tested and stable.
> 
> The answer to this is that, although the latest stable MI version is
> probably the most stable version to rely upon, the old MI versions are
> also supported to the degree that there are tests in the test suite
> that exercise them.  For example, currently there are tests for mi1
> although the latest MI version is mi2.
> 
> Of course, bugs in MI versions other than the latest will probably not
> be corrected.

Right, I wouldn't expect them to be.

OK, Andrew gave me the exact opposite answer here. That is why I asked again
   http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-10/msg00177.html

maybe I'm wrong, and you guys are saying the same thing?

> > >    * I would like to ensure that my front end works well with snapshots
> > >      of GDB. I do not want to work with the MI development protocol, I
> > >      just want to work with the last officially supported protocol.
> > 
> > For CVS snapshots, does GDB only support (tested) the development MI
> > protocol? or does it support the last stable protocol? or does it
> > support multiple stable protocols?
> 
> Again, the answer is that the support guarantee is the same for the
> CVS versions: whatever the test suite exercises is supported to the
> same degree.

It is important to me that the CVS snapshots try to at least honor the
last major MI version before the version bump. Is this something
everyone thinks will be possible?

I do understand that old MI protocols could be dropped because of
maintenance issues. Would we go as far as dropping the last stable
protocol, this could potentially be a problem for me.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi