From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21235 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2009 19:53:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 21227 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Sep 2009 19:53:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:53:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.18]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n83Jmi7v030899; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:48:44 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n83JmiBe018268; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:48:44 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n83Jmgc9004487; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:48:43 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 63AB8378242; Thu, 3 Sep 2009 13:48:42 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [gdb-7.0 release] 2009-09-02 status and proposed plan References: <20090902164425.GR4379@adacore.com> <83skf490r6.fsf@gnu.org> <20090903192746.GD4379@adacore.com> Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2009 19:53:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20090903192746.GD4379@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:27:46 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00053.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Eli> I hope the catch syscalls is one of them. I never understood why it Eli> wasn't committed. (Apologies if it was and I just missed that.) Joel> I also hope that this patch makes it to the release, but I do not see Joel> this new feature as release critical. So, unless other GMs would prefer Joel> to have it for 7.0, I personally think that we should not delay the Joel> release just for this feature. I am unhappy with the facts of the situation: we've had a nice new feature, rewritten several times, pending since April. I know both from personal experience, and from talking to contributors, that this sort of thing is very demoralizing, and consequently hurts GDB. That said, I do agree with your reasoning and conclusion. Tom