From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32016 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2009 21:37:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 31964 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Sep 2009 21:37:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e24smtp02.br.ibm.com (HELO e24smtp02.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.86) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:36:53 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.109]) by e24smtp02.br.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n84LiuIp012686 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:44:56 -0300 Received: from d24av03.br.ibm.com (d24av03.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.45]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n84LbP9Y880908 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:37:25 -0300 Received: from d24av03.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av03.br.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id n84LanfO023406 for ; Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:36:49 -0300 Received: from miki.localnet ([9.18.203.204]) by d24av03.br.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id n84LamUG023399 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 4 Sep 2009 18:36:49 -0300 From: =?iso-8859-1?q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= To: gdb@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [gdb-7.0 release] 2009-09-02 status and proposed plan Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:37:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.0 (Linux/2.6.30.4; KDE/4.3.0; i686; ; ) Cc: Joel Brobecker , Eli Zaretskii References: <20090902164425.GR4379@adacore.com> <20090903192746.GD4379@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <200909041836.48339.sergiodj@linux.vnet.ibm.com> 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 Hi Tom, On Thursday 03 September 2009, Tom Tromey wrote: > I am unhappy with the facts of the situation: we've had a nice new > feature, rewritten several times, pending since April. I know both from > personal experience, and from talking to contributors, that this sort of > thing is very demoralizing, and consequently hurts GDB. Thank you very much for this. When I first sent this patch, I expected it = to=20 be accepted very fast, since it's a "wanted feature". However, and I *real= ly*=20 understand the reasons, it has became an "snow ball" and still waiting for= =20 review now. Anyway, I won't stop until it gets accepted :-). Regards, --=20 S=E9rgio Durigan J=FAnior Linux on Power Toolchain - Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - LTC IBM Brazil