From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27790 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2009 23:35:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 27753 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2009 23:35:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,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; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:35:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C442BAB77; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:35:20 -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 rKPdEZo1Yfc3; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CA7C2BAAD7; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:35:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7B773E7ACD; Thu, 26 Feb 2009 15:35:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:35:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Thiago Jung Bauermann Cc: gdb ml Subject: Re: google summer of code Message-ID: <20090226233515.GB3632@adacore.com> References: <1235658320.5890.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090226173438.GA3632@adacore.com> <1235685320.5890.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1235685320.5890.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-02/txt/msg00168.txt.bz2 > > Note that it would be nice if the project was focusing on the FSF GDB, > > but if it makes things simpler for whoever submits an entry and/or > > mentors the project, it's fine with me if the project gets attached > > to Archer, for instance. This decision can only be at the discretion > > of the people who spend the effort on this project, after all... > > At least for the Python support, IMHO we could use the Archer repo while > the student is working on it, and then have a requirement of having the > feature submitted and accepted upstream for the project to be considered > finished. Seems very reasonable to me. I would go even farther and say that control over what goes in the FSF tree is held by a group of persons. So it might be risky to have inclusion of the patches in the FSF tree as a "requirement" in the strict sense. From our limited experience with Archer, it looks like Archer is a nice greenhouse for maturing some new features before pushing them onto the FSF gdb. As long as the feature is properly implemented there, I think we'll eventually manage to incorporate it in the FSF gdb, one way or the other. (I can be obsessed with flowers sometimes :-) -- Joel