This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [patch rfa:doco rfc:NEWS] mi1 -> mi2; rm mi0



>
>Are you planning to revert mi1 then?

Que?

"mi2" changes have been sneaking in.  Are you planning to revert them -
create an "mi1" which matches what mi1 actually was.
It's a bit late for that. Someone should audit the changes made so far and identify which caused syntax changes and update accordingly. Fixes could, perhaphs be pushed into 5.3 (but I don't have the time).

Otherwise, where is the line drawn to mark the interface version as
final?  It seems to me that the default shouldn't be evolving, that
-i=mi should default to a fixed point until the next version is
running.
I think a line is drawn when each release is made. I'd expect an MI client to explicitly specify -i=miN (where N was formally released) rather than trust -i=mi.

However, should the HEAD hold off on recognizing -i=mi2 until the next branch is cut? On the HEAD, -i=mi evolves by definition. However, -i=mi2 is evolving as well :-(

Andrew



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]