Re: Current Status of Insight

["Hans W. Horn" <hannes@2horns.com>]

I, Hans Horn,  care too!
Pls add me to the list!
H.

Steven Johnson wrote:
> It seems that there is at least 6 people that care:
> 
> (in no particular order, and sorry if i list you and you dont really
> care) 
> 
> 1. Keith Seitz
> 2. Duane Ellis
> 3. Roland Schwingel
> 4. Paul Schlie
> 5. Christopher Faylor
> 6. Steven Johnson (me)
> And Maybe (although it is less than clear from their posts):
> 7. Nickolay Kolchin
> 8. Jon Beniston
> 
> Anybody else care to add their name to this list of people that care
> about, or at the very least use a version of insight and would like to
> see it continue in some form.
> 
> If we cant join em (FSF GDB and RH Insight) why dont we just fork em?
> 
> We could go to Sourceforge, do a checkout of insight CVS Head, move
> development over to there, and at least then it can progress, we can
> cut releases, etc.  Official insight can stay here, and do whatever
> its 
> going to.  If the FSF and RH ever feel like getting together on this
> they can, and we could merge back our changes.
> 
> We track official GDB (ie merge GDB CVS with our tree daily), and
> release (close to synch with it), but are really independent from it.
> 
> To the extent anyone cares, insight would continue to be (visibly)
> maintained and survive.  If people really stopped caring it would die,
> at least we could attempt to attract new users (1 or 2 of which might
> even contribute something useful), as there would be "stable"
> releases, synched to official GDB the attraction would be greater. 
> It does seem like most of the people that care are using it for
> embedded programming, a few (maybe most) want it to work under
> windows. (I use it under 
> Linux).  In the mean time, we would have a maintainable version.
> 
> CVS_Head of Insight, is that the same level of code as CVS_Head of
> GDB? (ie, does it incorporate CVS_Head of GDB?)
> 
> As a minimum all that needs to happen is ensure that Insight continues
> to build and function on top of current GDB.  And I think thats what
> Keith is basically saying he does with CVS_Head, keep it building and
> functional against CVS_Head of GDB, all im really proposing (as a
> minimum) is making the process a little more transparent, and cutting
> releases (maybe its more work than that? Keith?).
> 
> Anyway is this feasible, of interest, or a waste of time?
> 
> There are a lot of nify features a debugger targeted to embedded
> systems could have, and insight could have them reasonably easily. 
> We could 
> even start re-writing the portions that are Red Hat copyright, over
> time, if we felt like it.  Any new code, could be put in new files and
> assigned to the FSF, over time (maybe years) id suspect the RH code
> would eventually disappear and it would all be assigned to the FSF.
> 
> The first thing to do, i would see is create a new project on
> sourceforge, move the code over there, and cut a first (current)
> version.  Even if it isnt quite GDB 6.3, we could call it "insight
> 6.3D" or some such (D for development release).  BTW, is "insight" a
> RH trademark, would it need to be renamed.  I always fancied
> "oversight" :)  Any new code, could be put in new files and assigned
> to the FSF. 
> over time (maybe years) id suspect the RH code would eventually
> disappear and it would all be assigned to the FSF.
> 
> If this is something ive generated interest with (with others), I will
> even invest in some web space for the project, so it can have its own
> URL (at least for a year or two, depending on its life, and my
> continued ability to fund it).
> 
> Keith, you seem to be the primary maintainer of insight, i dont want
> to mess with your project here, so your comments are of significant
> interest to me, in this regard.  I wouldnt like to see more "code
> hostility" if forking is feasible, then we should do it in a
> constructive way, for the benefit of all users, just to get rid of
> some of the restrictions the code base currently seems to face.
> 
> Also, i realise that i seem to have jumped in here and stirred things
> up, i have been an insight user for a long time, have submitted
> various things in the past (cheers go out to Fernando Nasser if hes
> listening). Its not my intention.  But if there are a lot of people
> building insight from CVS_Head and then using it for real work, then
> i thnk it should be kept going in a visible way, otherwise people
> will think what i thought "insight is dead, boo hoo, how crappy",
> when instead it is really just bubbling along under the surface, not
> progressing in great leaps and bounds, but still breathing.
> 
> Steven Johnson
> 
> Keith Seitz wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 22:09 -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> I think past and current employees of Red Hat would probably agree
>>> with you about this sorry state of affairs.
>>> 
>>> Keith, what about a petition to Red Hat?  Think that would work?
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> I have no idea. For all I know, it might get me fired! [Okay, I don't
>> actually think it would, but who the heck knows?] I've thought about
>> this and other things.
>> 
>> I know this looks very badly upon Red Hat, but I want to make it
>> absolutely clear: I don't blame them one darn bit for not wanting to
>> take the time (and money) to see all the paperwork done. It does not
>> make economic sense.
>> 
>> I would also like to emphasize that when it comes to programming
>> tools (compilers, debuggers, etc), Red Hat is not a company, IME,
>> that is all take an no give. I've been involved with several
>> projects where Red Hat took AND gave back to the community.
>> 
>> Once again, I think we're finally at the point where we must ask
>> ourselves: Does it matter to anyone?*
>> 
>> Keith
>> 
>> * A question I have been meaning to ask for almost two years, but
>> kept chickening out in the last second...