From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-21043-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 606 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2005 00:53:22 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 32468 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2005 00:53:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao01.cox.net) (68.230.240.38)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 29 Mar 2005 00:53:17 -0000
Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao01.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP
          id <20050329005315.QBSN29182.lakermmtao01.cox.net@white>;
          Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:53:15 -0500
Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 1DG5ti-00011V-00; Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:52:02 -0500
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:53:00 -0000
From: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
To: Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com>
Cc: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>,
	gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Product branches in the GDB repository?
Message-ID: <20050329015202.GC3801@white>
Mail-Followup-To: Stan Shebs <shebs@apple.com>,
	Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>,
	Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
References: <20050322002034.GA19385@nevyn.them.org> <423F68A3.3090703@apple.com> <16959.33075.606023.632089@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <42407558.4030503@apple.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <42407558.4030503@apple.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2

On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:43:20AM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote:
> Nick Roberts wrote:
> 
> >> (Does that mean Apple GDB should get a branch here too?
> >> Interesting question...)
> >
> >In that case, do Apple intend to merge their changes with HEAD at some 
> >stage?
> >I am particularly interested in their changes to GDB/MI.
> >
> I can't speak for our future plans, but I personally would like to
> make it happen, and I recently got reassigned to debugger hacking,
> which gives us a 33% increase in our GDB hack power. So there's
> some reason for optimism.

It would certainly benefit everyone if you guys could contribute back.
For example, I'm probably going to be reimplementing some MI features
you guys already have. I hate to do that if the work has already been
done. (ie. Asyncronous commands need to return the type of command they
are, so the command can be analsized semantically)

Bob Rossi