From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30319 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2003 20:11:21 -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 30308 invoked by uid 0); 20 Feb 2003 20:11:21 -0000 Resent-Message-ID: <20030220201121.30307.qmail@sources.redhat.com> Received: (qmail 10043 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2003 06:54:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mxout3.netvision.net.il) (194.90.9.24) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 20 Feb 2003 06:54:59 -0000 Received: from is.elta.co.il ([207.232.27.5]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.08 (built Dec 6 2002)) with SMTP id <0HAL00AWRHVDEA@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:54:55 +0200 (IST) Received: from eltinlb1.elta.co.il (172.16.0.122) by ELTIGW1.elta.co.il; Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:55:59 +0200 Received: from ELTIMAIL1.elta.co.il ([172.16.0.103]) by eltinlb1.elta.co.il with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.5329); Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:55:55 +0200 Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:11:00 -0000 From: Zaretskii Eli Subject: RE: [maint] The GDB maintenance process To: Daniel Berlin , Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Elena Zannoni , Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <4D19136444628A40840EFE8C5AE04147017A44@ELTIMAIL1.elta.co.il> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message X-Privawall-Id: 0002556710ab X-Originalarrivaltime: 20 Feb 2003 06:55:55.0707 (UTC) FILETIME=[1D9570B0:01C2D8AD] Resent-From: root@sourceware.org Resent-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:11:21 +0000 X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00448.txt.bz2 This message was scanned for viruses and other malicious code by PrivaWall. This mail was sent from ELTA SYS LTD. > From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dberlin@dberlin.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 3:24 PM > > > I guess I just don't see this to be as much of a problem as others do. > > For one thing, with the higher entropy level, more development actually > > happens. > Bingo. > I don't think we should stall development (and in the > extreme, even if > it means we can't make quality releases any day of the year) because > mistakes occasionally happen in patches, or because not every > maintainer in existence has said something about a patch. That's a > recipe for no progress. For some definition of ``progress''. Who said that adding code at a faster rate at the price of having more bugs is more ``progress'' than what we have now? There are people out there who need GDB to actually do something _useful_, not just to debug and/or develop GDB itself, you know. What about frustration of those GDB users when their favorite feature is broken by some committed-before-review patch that adds a hot new feature? Does that ever count? Does anyone remember that latest GCC releases are practically unusable for any production-quality work due to bugs? Does anyone even care? I say thanks God for slower development of GDB. At least I can _debug_ buggy code produced by buggy development tools ;-) Of course, if contributors are frustrated by the slow review rate, let's try to improve that (see my other mail). But let's not obscure our view of the problem by discussing abstract issues of ``progress''. An official release every 3 months is more than enough progress for my taste. This message is processed by the PrivaWall Email Security Server.