This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb.texinfo is getting too big
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Stan Shebs <stan at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:55:00 -0700
- Subject: Re: gdb.texinfo is getting too big
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CADPb22S7Yjz=um_7P_9M_yS-ko7+jNQXzf8HqtWn3QdWqoD2DA at mail dot gmail dot com> <83ob6rpqa5 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CADPb22SdNrdrhsQJuQYAzQTEQtj7j+Pwf5VQo05qUETLJ5Zbuw at mail dot gmail dot com> <83mwmbp80v dot fsf at gnu dot org>
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 13:25:59 -0700
>> From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
>> Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>, Stan Shebs <stan@codesourcery.com>
>>
>> Next question: Any strong preference for how?
>> I suggested splitting up by chapter, and that's fine with me, but
>> before I do all that work, IWBN to get pre-approval for at least the
>> general idea.
>> I count > 40.
>> Is there a less granular split people want?
>
> No, it's too fine-grained. 40 files is too much, IMO. It is better
> to group several consecutive chapters into a single file.
>
>> [Keeping the split mechanical, by something like chapter, is easy.
>> Otherwise a discussion could drag on ...]
>
> Well, you started it ;-)
The worry I have with any kind of grouping not based on the doc itself
is that it introduces a potentially non-intuitive layer that someone
has to learn in order to know which file contains the text one wants
to edit. grep will find it of course, but if one is having to grep
too much, would that be a problem?