From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1699 invoked by alias); 26 Dec 2009 09:06:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 1690 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Dec 2009 09:06:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:06:23 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KV900G0059UYM00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb@sourceware.org; Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:06:21 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.236.58]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KV900G7V5AIYJ00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 26 Dec 2009 11:06:19 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 09:06:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Wiki: Started a page on how to write testcases for GDB In-reply-to: <20091226085656.GY24363@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <838wcq5ch8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <20091226054448.GW24363@adacore.com> <83aax65di7.fsf@gnu.org> <20091226085656.GY24363@adacore.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: 2009-12/txt/msg00159.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 12:56:56 +0400 > From: Joel Brobecker > Cc: gdb@sourceware.org > > > Thanks. > > It would be nice to have this as part of gdbint.texinfo as well. > > I think we should put the info in either document, but not both, or > we would be duplicating the info. I chose the Wiki because it's very > easy to update and maintain. To be honest, I don't think I will have > the courage to make fixes if it means having to go through the normal > review process. You don't need to add this to gdbint.texinfo until it's in good shape and sufficiently complete. Likewise, not every change on the wiki needs to be immediately reflected in the manual, you can do that only after a substantial amount of changes went in. OTOH, fixing a typo or some similar trivial correction don't need to be reviewed, and if they are, the result is known in advance. IOW, I'm willing to make a lot of allowances if that will convince you ;-) My rationale is very simple: if we start putting important parts of documentation on the wiki, then why maintain the manuals at all?