This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 2/3] deprecate "skip enable/etc.", doc string cleanup
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 21:31:58 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] deprecate "skip enable/etc.", doc string cleanup
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <047d7bdc05e2ada5ef0530c446d1 at google dot com> <83zisq923i dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CADPb22RDOModEuNmrJOwAfPN7ig6nTOQy=ajcxBbb4M31kM74w at mail dot gmail dot com> <83potm8zj2 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CADPb22SQeyD9FZ9yRHiCEK=u4VsfsGiu-rNKJr9yyf3ecj1YZA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 04/18/2016 09:01 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Eli Zaretskii <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> From: Doug Evans <email@example.com>
>>> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:42:04 -0700
>>> Cc: gdb-patches <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>> I certainly don't want to replicate all that text again
>>> and again (hence the macros).
>> I understand, but put yourself in the position of someone who needs to
>> review a patch, and sees something like this:
>> +Display the status of skips.\n"
>> +EDDI_USAGE_DOC_STRING_WITH_ALL ("skip", "info skip", "displayed")));
>> How does that someone know if the resulting text is good English and
>> will produce a clear help text, or needs to be fixed in some way?
> I'm open to suggestions.
> I really hope the solution is to not expand all those macro
> invocations in place.
I think the answer is to include the before/after GDB output in
the mail submission / git log.
We actually already ask for that in the contribution checklist :
"If you're changing the output of some command, include a paste of the
relevant parts of gdb session, before and after the change."
 - https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ContributionChecklist#General_requirements