Re: annotate.texi

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz at delorie dot com>]

> > Is there any reason why annotate.texi shouldn't be @include'd by
> > gdb.texinfo and be part of the manual?  Right now, "set annotate" is
> > not documented at all, and annotate.texi seems to be just what the
> > doctor ordered...
> 
> This is on my long-term wish list for the manual, along with agentexpr
> info.

So, will it be okay to submit a change to gdb.texinfo to include
annotate.texi (and add the appropriate menu items to gdb.texinfo)?
IMHO, no matter how incomplete annotate.texi might be, it is still
MUCH better than not telling anything about this feature.

> > And while at that, NEWS seems to be in the need of some work, it
> > doesn't mention many of the new features that already are in the CVS
> > tree.  I would like at least to mention the improvements in the DJGPP
> > version.
> 
> Yes please.

Will do.

> But seriously, everybody doing a checkin should ask themselves: will
> users want to know about this change?  Usually the answer will be
> yes; users complain about lack of information far more often than
> about overloaded...

The manual is also in dire need of more indexing.  I find myself using
(the inefficient) search command too much, instead of (the superb)
index-search.  Simple search is painful in a large manual.

I'm trying to add some indexing whenever I can.  But I suggest that
every manual patch be scrutinized for appropriate index entries, and
that this policy be published in the guidelines.