This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: KFAIL DejaGnu patch
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- To: Rob Savoye <rob at welcomehome dot org>
- Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>, Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>, Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>, drow at mvista dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 10:56:21 +0300 (IDT)
- Subject: Re: RFC: KFAIL DejaGnu patch
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Rob Savoye wrote:
> The entire DejaGnu community is way larger than
> just the GCC/GDB/Binutils team... and some of those other developers also
> know Docbook... While I think the various GCC/GDB people spread around the
> world are likely the most active DejaGnu users, as long as they can *read*
> the documentation in whatever output format they prefer, they're happy.
What good is it to have documentation one is unable to modify?
It took (and still takes) a lot of effort to help developers master
Texinfo (try searching this list for comments to various docs patches, if
you want examples). I hope that slowly people here are beginning to
realize that accompaining code changes with corresponding doco changes is
not such a hard requirement after all. This is a good development, I
think. If we add yet another language to what people need to know, we
might simply ruin it all.
So please reconsider the possibility of going back to Texinfo. Since I
understand there's a tool available to make the conversion, it sounds
like the amount of work is not large.