This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
MI patch criteria
- To: GDB Discussion <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Subject: MI patch criteria
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:31:44 -0400
Hello,
Given two non Red Hat MI patches have appeared in the space of less than
a week I'd better get my act together and open a discussion about the
acceptance criteria for MI changes.
So first a little history. When MI was being developed (within Cygnus)
a lot of emphasis was put on testing and documentation. It was intended
for a commercial quality product (1). To that end, there were pretty
strict rules on when/what could go in: All new commands had to be
documented and tested; all bug fixes and to be tested (where possible).
Now that MI is out in the open and part of FSF GDB rather than a pet
Cygnus project, I think it is time to table what were then internal to
Cygnus criteria and open them up for public discussion.
Personally I'd like to stick to the existing criteria vis:
For new commands: doco + testsuite
For bug fixes: testsuite (possibly doco)
Andrew
(1) I think of a comercial quality product as something that can back up
the answer to the question ``what bugs were fixed in this release?''
with hard evidence (eg the testsuite). Often comercial software isn't
commercial quality :-)