From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1307 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2002 16:33:23 -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 1275 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2002 16:33:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.cygnus.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Jan 2002 16:33:22 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.cygnus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF163DCD; Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:33:16 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C56CECC.7040102@cygnus.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 08:33:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20020103 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] maint note on obsoleting code References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00330.txt.bz2 > On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >> @emph{Maintainer note: Obsoleting a target or code is actually a good >> thing. > > > Aren't we supposed to be mightily sad when some target becomes obsolete? > They mostly do because no one wants to maintain them anymore, a user who > cannot afford hacking GDB will not be pleased... It now reads: @emph{Maintainer note: Removing old code, while regrettable, is a good thing. Firstly it helps the developers by removing code that is either no longer relevant or simply wrong. Secondly since it removes any history associated with the file (effectively clearing the slate) the developer has a much freer hand when it comes to fixing broken files.} should it be softened further? Andrew