Re: [PATCH] Improve i386 prologue analyzer

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>]

> > > Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:13:42 -0400
> > > From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> >
> > > > > 
> > > > > We are talking about two weeks, not about months or something.  Why is
> > > > > it worthwhile to go through the pains of another version just so the
> > > > > MIPS patch could be released a week or two earlier than if it were to
> > > > > be part of the same version as the i386 prologue patch?
> >
> > > Sorry, I don't follow.  I would have thought that a little bit of pain 
> > > (on our part) would be worth the satisfaction of seeing us deliver a 
> > > better working GDB sooner.
>
>
> It's not only pain on our part (which I don't think we should dismiss
> so lightly, btw, but that's just me).

Please, please, articulate the `pain on our part' that we're apparently 
all suffering.  I'm the release manager, if anyone is is going to 
experience pain, it's going to be me.

> It's also the pain of our users
> who will need to install two versions within 4 weeks.

This update is for _MIPS_ users only.  The next update is for _i386_ 
users only.

> And I still don't understand what is the rush to release the MIPS
> patch without waiting for another week or two and then releasing the
> i386 patch as well.

If I were a MIPS user (hmm, I'm even the maintainer), I'd be pretty 
cheesed off that a fix to get `break main; run' working was being held 
back due the inistance that it be bundled with an unrelated i386 fix.

Andrew