From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26982 invoked by alias); 13 May 2005 14:16:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact insight-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: insight-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26502 invoked from network); 13 May 2005 14:15:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp802.mail.sc5.yahoo.com) (66.163.168.181) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 13 May 2005 14:15:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO HANSHORN) (2horns@sbcglobal.net@67.124.99.20 with login) by smtp802.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 May 2005 14:15:33 -0000 Message-ID: <005c01c557c6$38d12960$6400a8c0@almaden.ibm.com> Reply-To: "Hans W. Horn" From: "Hans W. Horn" To: "Steven Johnson" , References: <428460FB.3090607@sakuraindustries.com> <1115911019.4491.17.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <428504D9.7000609@sakuraindustries.com> <20050513020929.GB14106@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> <1115950737.4491.95.camel@lindt.uglyboxes.com> <4285E73D.8010709@sakuraindustries.com> Subject: Re: Current Status of Insight Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 14:16:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-q2/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 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...