From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7517 invoked by alias); 2 May 2010 17:05:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 7401 invoked by uid 22791); 2 May 2010 17:05:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 02 May 2010 17:05:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE4AE2BAB68; Sun, 2 May 2010 13:05:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 7mx84hriV+cL; Sun, 2 May 2010 13:05:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEA8A2BAB66; Sun, 2 May 2010 13:05:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3B669F58F9; Sun, 2 May 2010 10:05:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 17:05:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb/PROBLEMS ? Message-ID: <20100502170510.GE2768@adacore.com> References: <201005021726.19409.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201005021726.19409.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 > I looked over the described problems in gdb/PROBLEMS, and, it looks > to me that all of them fall in one of two categories: either > they've been fixed already, or aren't worth mentioning here. I concur - with a small disclaimer on some of the entries related to C++, where I do not follow development closely enough. > I think that if we're not sticking with the policy > of maintaining the file anymore, we should get rid of the file > entirely. If not, we should update the version reference in this file > as well. But meanwhile, this is just as good (or better! GDB has > no problems!), and better than pointing at problems that are gone > already, for sure. Now that we have a decent bug tracking system, I think we should, at most, direct people there. We can keep the PROBLEMS file as a redirect. Something like this: --------------------------------------------- Known problems in GDB All known problems in GDB are now documented and tracked through Bugzilla at: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/. --------------------------------------------- But we could also get rid of the file entirely; that would be fine too, IMO. -- Joel