Re: GDB 9.1 release: Start of stabilization period ?

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>]

Hi Philippe,

Based on the current overall feedback, I think you'll manage to get
if not all, probably some of the changes you propose below.
I'll keep them in my list of items to watch out for, but
see also my comments below:

> Here are the patches sent for review
> (by order of first submission, but pointing at the last exchange):
> 
> RFC Have an option to tell GDB to detect and possibly handle mismatched exec-files
> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-09/msg00580.html

We can try to keep this one in the list, but I wouldn't mark it
as absolutely critical for the release.

> Convenience functions $_gdb_setting/$_gdb_setting_str
> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-09/msg00581.html

Same idea as above, except you are saying that it's ready to push.
Given what we have in the list, and the general proposal, I think
you'll manage to get this one in on time. But I propose we allow
ourselves to skip it if it delays the release process by an unreasonable
amount of time for whatever reason.

> Allow the user to define default leading args for commands and aliases
> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-09/msg00583.html
> 
> Implement 'print -raw-values' and 'set print raw-values on|off'
> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-09/msg00582.html

> More flexible user-defined commands prefixing and naming.
> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-09/msg00588.html

These is the kind of change where I think we benefit from not rushing
too much. If it's ready, then great, let's have it. On the other end,
it's really nice to have new features have an "observation period"
in master before they make it to a release. That way, if we discover
some weaknesses while using it in master, we have a chance to adjust
without having to worry about user-compatibility.

The story would be a bit different if you told me that a feature
we just added is severly limited without it, but from what I understand,
this is not the case.
Same here.

> And here is the advocacy to include them ...
> 
> The first one fixes an annoying GDB behavior.
> 
> I think the second one is now ready to push.
> 
> The third and fourth are useful additions or complements
> to the GDB 9.1 'with' and 'option framework' functionalities.
> 
> Assuming that with the stabilisation period, there is more review
> bandwidth, then the last one is nice to have :).
> 
> Thanks
> Philippe
> 

-- 
Joel