From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15344 invoked by alias); 5 Oct 2004 09:18:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15332 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2004 09:18:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Oct 2004 09:18:24 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.155.207]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR) with ESMTP id CTF00167 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:17:53 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 10:57:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Bob Rossi Message-ID: <01c4aabb$Blat.v2.2.2$e64c8fc0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: kettenis@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20041004155805.GF8121@white> (message from Bob Rossi on Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:58:05 -0400) Subject: Re: GDB/MI snapshots between major release's Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20041003163918.GB7030@white> <01c4a9ce$Blat.v2.2.2$d01969a0@zahav.net.il> <20041004131906.GB8121@white> <200410041533.i94FXsPa014648@juw15.nfra.nl> <20041004155805.GF8121@white> X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 11:58:05 -0400 > From: Bob Rossi > Cc: eliz@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com > > OK, this is good news. So basically, even thought the MI version is > bumped it is still not official. Meaning, at that point, if I updated my > front end to be compatible with the new MI protocol version, there could > still be another incompatible change before the release. Meaning, I > would have to wait for the release to get the use out of that new > version. This is OK with me as long as, > > - I can have the --mi-protocols command line switch that tells me > what version of GDB/MI protocol is officially supported. > > - This command line switch only has MI protocols added to it when the > MI protocols become official ( for a release ) We could do that, but I still think an MI command is a better vehicle for such a feature. > Is this your view or the view of GDB/MI's maintainers also? I'm not an MI maintainer, but I fully agree with Mark, FWIW.