From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28884 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2003 18:13:07 -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 28877 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2003 18:13:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bilbo.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.18) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Dec 2003 18:13:07 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.146.53]) by bilbo.inter.net.il (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.8-GR) with ESMTP id CBE97143; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:12:58 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 18:13:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) Message-Id: <2914-Sun14Dec2003201134+0200-eliz@elta.co.il> CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20031214160224.0FF864B412@berman.michael-chastain.com> (mec.gnu@mindspring.com) Subject: Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20031214160224.0FF864B412@berman.michael-chastain.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00203.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:02:24 -0500 (EST) > From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) > > > However, running the script once a month (on the then-latest snapshot, > > I presume) is not something that I can afford, and I don't see anyone > > else stepping forward to do that for me. > > If you can't commit 1-2 hours per month to test djgpp gdb, how are you > going to respond to bug reports and patches? It isn't 1-2 hours, unfortunately. More like a full day. > What's going to happen when it bit rots and stops building? > > I think you should reconsider whether you have the resources to be a > maintainer for djgpp gdb. No one seems to be stepping forward, and I haven't seen patches submitted for quite some time, anyway. So it doesn't seem it will make any difference. That said, feel free to fire me. > > Since your proposal for deprecating counts minor releases, would it > > be enough to request a run for every such release? > > In my opinion, no. Why not? > > Isn't it better to start deprecating only if we know that some code > > specific to a platform is broken by a certain change to GDB? > > Again, in my opinion, no. Again, why not?