From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6392 invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2008 03:22:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 6382 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Jun 2008 03:22:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout3.012.net.il (HELO mtaout3.012.net.il) (84.95.2.7) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 03:22:02 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.217.57]) by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0K2U00BSDI1XUK31@i_mtaout3.012.net.il> for gdb@sourceware.org; Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:37:10 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 03:22:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: Internals manual update In-reply-to: <485D83C2.6020208@earthlink.net> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <485D83C2.6020208@earthlink.net> 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: 2008-06/txt/msg00207.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:42:10 -0700 > From: Stan Shebs > > So as I've been refreshing my memory about GDB code, I've also been > going through the internals manual and making it be more consistent with > the current state of things. Thanks! > Would people be content with me posting a mega-patch(es) for overall > progress, or would they prefer individual patches for each specific > change? Mega-patches are okay with me, provided that the ChangeLog entries to go with them allow to figure out which part belongs to what change. > Also, one specific change I made was to whack down the host stuff to > basically one line that says "we used to have host config files", > instead of a full section with a warning at the top that the material is > of historical interest only. My thought is that if someone really wanted > to research a long-gone macro more thoroughly than just review of > ChangeLog entries, they would want to get old releases anyway, which > would have both internals manual and sources using that macro. Agreed. The reason the historical parts are there is that no one made them up to date. > In general it seems to me that the internals manual should > correspond to current sources closely, only have the occasional > reference to ancient history. Right. Thanks again for working on this.