Re: Implement -exec-jump

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>]

> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:57:49 +0400
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> > > I believe that a development process that is based on a list of documented
> > > rules or guidelines is in general more smooth, than one that relies on
> > > ad-hoc requests.
> > 
> > That's fine with me, but I don't think it means that a request outside
> > written rules should be automatically rejected just because it isn't
> > documented.  Our process is just barely documented, so building on
> > that alone would make our work and cooperation much harder than it
> > needs to be.
> 
> Sorry, I'm don't follow. It would take you a couple of minutes to document,
> somewhere, whatever you've said in this thread, and this will make future
> development process more smooth. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong.  However, my point was that we don't need (and
in practice, cannot) rely on documented rules alone.

> > A request to commit changes with docs is not different from a request
> > to have a test case for each new feature.  I think we should do both.
> 
> On tests, I similarly don't think that an overly strict approach will
> not hurt. Sometimes, having tests checked in later is better approach
> overall.

I think the majority here thinks otherwise.

> I somehow doubt that in my particular case, making me commit code and doc
> patches always together will serve any purpose.

It eases the burden, that's all.  We are all busy people.

> > Even just
> > mentioning the command with minimal documentation and a FIXME for
> > later would be good enough at this point.
> 
> Do you have a mechanism to track FIXMEs in documentation, so that GDB 7.0
> is not released with FIXMEs in documentation?

FIXME in a comment is not visible in the produced manual.  What I was
trying to say was that some minimal documentation is infinitely better
than no documentation.

> > In addition, I said many times in the past that if Texinfo and other
> > technicalities are a burden, contributors can post the documentation
> > in plain text in their own words, and I will convert them to valid
> > Texinfo and reword as necessary.  If that makes the burden easier, I'm
> > here to make good on my promises.
> 
> Frankly, I was never comfortable with the idea of posting "sketch" patches
> for you to do the real work.

It's an offer; if you are uncomfortable with it, you don't have to
take it.  But if it will help us get documentation in time, the effort
is worthwhile for me.

> You might want to note that the patch for -exec-jump docs was now posted,
> and we're not even that close to branch point.

Thank you.