This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Implement -exec-jump

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
To: Vladimir Prus <vladimir at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 10:20:43 +0300
Subject: Re: Implement -exec-jump
References: <200904080950.16691.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <838wmb63h9.fsf@gnu.org> <200904081108.17248.vladimir@codesourcery.com>
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>

> From: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 11:08:16 +0400
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> > It is okay to _post_ a patch for review saying that the documentation
> > patch will be _posted_ later, but actually _committing_ the code part
> > is something very different.
> 
> Is this rule documented anywhere?

I don't know, and I didn't know every request needs a documented rule.

I at least thought it was an accepted truism that we as a team don't
want undocumented features.

> Do you think having a window of time where *development version*
> has an undocumented feature that is primary targeted at *frontend developers*
> is worse than not having that feature at all?

Yes, that's what I think.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Implement -exec-jump
  - From: Vladimir Prus
- Re: Implement -exec-jump
  - From: AndrÃ PÃnitz

References:
- Implement -exec-jump
  - From: Vladimir Prus
- Re: Implement -exec-jump
  - From: Eli Zaretskii
- Re: Implement -exec-jump
  - From: Vladimir Prus

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]