This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Features vs infrastructure (was Re: Tracepoint support in Cygnus GDB ?)
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at gnat dot com>
- To: Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>
- Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>,Eli Zaretskii <eliz at elta dot co dot il>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 00:02:41 -0700
- Subject: Re: Features vs infrastructure (was Re: Tracepoint support in Cygnus GDB ?)
- References: <3F76EC92.6010005@redhat.com> <4098-Sun28Sep2003234119+0300-eliz@elta.co.il> <3F775F6C.8070209@redhat.com> <uzngogl7s.fsf@elta.co.il> <3F784618.50203@redhat.com> <3F7B4BEC.1060800@apple.com> <3F7B9B85.50201@redhat.com> <3F7B9FEF.6070600@apple.com> <3F7BB81C.6090403@redhat.com> <3F7BC8C6.7010601@apple.com>
> That's an interesting question. Thinking about that, and comparing with
> GCC experience, I'd say that in general it's just extremely difficult to
> get infrastructural work accomplished in a small group or small company;
> you'd have to have a sufficiently large and/or well-funded group that
> the time taken by infrastructure does not affect the group's overall
> schedule.
Unfortunately, my own experience with large companies is that they have
very very very controlled budgets and that it's hard to explain to a
manager who only cares about functionality that such and such
infrastructure work is going to save some bucks later if the rework is
going to take more than, say, a few days.
In my opinion, unless you find a talented developper willing to invest
a lot of his own time, the right way to go is incremental improvements
via transition plans.
--
Joel