From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8930 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2004 13:23:31 -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 8897 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2004 13:23:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 13:23:29 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-196-71.inter.net.il [80.230.196.71]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR) with ESMTP id CTW24294 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 8 Oct 2004 15:23:02 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 13:42:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Bob Rossi Message-ID: <01c4ad39$Blat.v2.2.2$9d15a8c0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20041008121321.GB15978@white> (message from Bob Rossi on Fri, 8 Oct 2004 08:13:21 -0400) Subject: Re: Bob's MI objective Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <416451B0.3060306@gnu.org> <20041006212652.GB13271@white> <20041008023243.GA15320@white> <01c4ad2b$Blat.v2.2.2$f25b86a0@zahav.net.il> <20041008121321.GB15978@white> X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00256.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 08:13:21 -0400 > From: Bob Rossi > Cc: cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com > > OK, Andrew gave me the exact opposite answer here. That is why I asked again > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2004-10/msg00177.html > > maybe I'm wrong, and you guys are saying the same thing? It surely sounds like Andrew is saying that all versions of MI except the latest one are completely unsupported and broken, but I really doubt he meant that. After all, if that were the case, why would we bother to keep those older versions in GDB? But please wait for Andrew's definitive response. > It is important to me that the CVS snapshots try to at least honor the > last major MI version before the version bump. Is this something > everyone thinks will be possible? I think that an MI version that was just been superceded by a newer one will not bitrot right away. So you can count on it for quite some time. Also, all the tests for that version are still there to make sure it works at least as well as it used to. > I do understand that old MI protocols could be dropped because of > maintenance issues. Would we go as far as dropping the last stable > protocol, this could potentially be a problem for me. I don't think the GDB maintainers will ever agree to such a radical measure, even if someone were to suggest it.