From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22690 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2008 23:49:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 22679 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jul 2008 23:49:46 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.70) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:49:27 +0000 Received: from [68.108.140.244] (helo=macbook-2.local) by elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1KH5t7-0004Wl-4c; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:49:25 -0400 Message-ID: <4876A003.2070005@earthlink.net> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:49:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nick Roberts CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Move GDB to C++ ? References: <487658F7.1090508@earthlink.net> <200807101901.m6AJ1UMQ007185@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <48766A88.1050402@earthlink.net> <18550.27427.430241.185251@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <48767395.7080905@gnu.org> <48767F78.8060806@earthlink.net> <18550.36167.750049.805236@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <18550.36167.750049.805236@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da940687c1afafbc2d26eea42897c33911406350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2 Nick Roberts wrote: > > It's certainly an approach worth thinking about. Presumably the point of > > working in a different directory is that the code might be expected to > > be broken or nonportable for a period of time, but when that happens you > > can run afoul of limited commitment levels, with people only able to > > work on gdbxx when they don't have regular gdb tasks. If everyone is > > forced into the same straitj^Wsource tree, dealing with mid-transition > > brokenness is (usually :-) ) justifiable as part of the job. > > Mid-transition brokenness only seems justifiable if there is unanimous > agreement that the transition is desirable. Imposing a change on people who > may not want it and then telling them that have to put up with the ensuing > brokeness, or fix it, seems quite unreasonable, expecially to those who have > contributed to it's previous state. > > Yes, I think one should have general agreement on the desirability of a transition in the first place. Everyone needs to be able to justify that additional overhead both in their own minds, and to colleagues, employers, etc. To me that's one of the strengths of open-source projects, is that we can mutually agree to undergo some temporary pain in order to modernize or extend the software, whereas proprietary projects often become fossilized because worthwhile improvements can't be proven to increase profits immediately. Stan