Re: RFA: Deprecate remote protocol sequence-ID

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>]

Steven Johnson wrote:
> 
> Is it just me, or does there seem to be a fair amount of interest in
> creating a new and improved transport layer for the GDB Remote Protocol?

It's just you ;-)

> If this happens, then might I make a few suggestions.

Several broad proposals have been put forward:

	o	do nothing, ignore the problem

	o	fix the existing protocol
		spec and then slowly evolve it
		to something better.

	o	start a-new keeping in mind
		the original protocols criteria
		(namely human ledgable, kiss, ...)

	o	various shades of the above

I've a backlog of doco+bug fix changes to the protocol (dropping ``:''
was just one of them) and I'll slowly trickle them out.  For me
personally, I'm kept in check by the very important need to move
carefully and keep any remove changes upward compatible.

There have also been several postings of revised protocols or
priliminary proposals at totally new ones.  Both more than welcome. 
Check the mail archives for previous discussions.

> This is all motherhood stuff, but I think it is important to start
> stating some of
> the obvious stuff so that it doesn't get ignored. Anything else Ive
> forgotten here?

I don't know.
	Andrew