From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32563 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2015 14:49:27 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 32550 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jan 2015 14:49:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:49:24 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C758211633A; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:49:22 -0500 (EST) 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 gfdTcib2zxNW; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:49:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 991421162FC; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 09:49:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2131A48E89; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 15:49:21 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 14:49:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: Eli Zaretskii , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for embedding scripts in .debug_gdb_scripts. Message-ID: <20150119144921.GC4041@adacore.com> References: <83ppaf3oe6.fsf@gnu.org> <83egqu1u69.fsf@gnu.org> <8361c5254p.fsf@gnu.org> <83egqsys6z.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00514.txt.bz2 > >> All NEWS entries for new features shall specify the platform(s) on which > >> the feature is available, if it is not a generally available feature. > >> [or words to that effect] > >> And let's enforce all these rules the way we do > >> coding conventions (which I don't have a problem with). > >> > >> Ok? > > > > I'm fine with that, if no one objects. But you cannot possibly codify > > all such minor issues, they are too many. And it isn't needed, from > > my POV. > > If it serves to put in writing absolute rules that someone is likely > to get tripped up by or not understand then it will have served its > purpose. I just personally think this is too extreme a measure. There are times when absolute rules may be useful, but I don't think this is the case here. Eli is our documentation maintainer,so let's continue trusting his judgement. This discussion is not about black and white, and as such, it's easy to disagree. But I don't think it's important enough to spend more time on this. I know it can be fustrating to make a change one does not believe in, but after a reasonable attempt at discussing it, I'd go with his call. -- Joel