From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11663 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2007 21:38:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 11653 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jul 2007 21:38:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:38:22 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98EF72AA097 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 9WM-98BtyRYb for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:38:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0829A2AA020 for ; Wed, 11 Jul 2007 17:38:19 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <46954DCE.40808@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 21:38:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB in C++ References: <00b601c7bda5$a5e6fa60$0a0a0a0a@DELORIAN> <1184183253.5515.51.camel@localhost.localdomain> <18069.13868.365370.13474@pkoning-laptop.equallogic.com> <20070711213153.GA3615@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20070711213153.GA3615@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2007-07/txt/msg00106.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 01:41:11PM -0700, Jim Blandy wrote: >> I wouldn't object to moving the internals documentation there. >> High-level organization is pretty key to effective documentation, >> though, so the wiki would need aggressive gardening. It would >> probably be good for it to have an appointed editor, to avoid ending >> up with two or three competing theories for the overall organization. > > For the record, I would object. I think the internals manual is fine > where it is, and would be no more likely to be expanded and kept up to > date if it were moved. > > I think the wiki is best taken advantage of as a tool for collecting > new information, which can then be added to the internals manual > through the normal review process. I agree with this suggestion ... >