From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3213 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2007 03:45:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 3205 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Sep 2007 03:45:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Sep 2007 03:45:15 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78D09982C5; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 03:45:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C7CB9814E; Sat, 8 Sep 2007 03:45:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1ITrFx-0008Re-21; Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:45:13 -0400 Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 07:21:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: Eli Zaretskii , Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: "^running" issues Message-ID: <20070908034513.GA32442@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Eli Zaretskii , Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200709041653.22357.ghost@cs.msu.su> <18145.5117.427647.382269@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200709071404.14065.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20070907180548.GA5595@caradoc.them.org> <18145.60697.604974.652756@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18145.60697.604974.652756@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-09/txt/msg00088.txt.bz2 On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 12:30:17PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > We're in a tricky situation. The developers of async mode were > > respected contributors - but they're not here any more to explain > > their work. It doesn't work as-is, so we can't test it. And Nick's > > patches to bring it into shape require someone who really understands > > what they're doing to review them. That's not going to be me, since I > > couldn't figure the patches out when I last tried. > > I don't really see much difference between GDB having code that we don't fully > understand, and installing code that we don't fully understand to use it: in > both cases we rely on the testsuite. The difference being that, if my changes > are installed, asynchronous operation will get tested and over time the code > will improve. When the code was originally installed, by its authors, they understood it. By committing it, they declared that it was right (at the time, in the current context, et cetera). Code that we don't understand doesn't have that assurance. I think it's a pretty big difference, but as I said, I am not likely to review such patches myself since I don't understand them. And I'm trying to cut back on the time I spent on review over the past few years. If another maintainer reviews them and has a different opinion, I'm not going to get in the way. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery