Re: annotate.texi

[Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> Is there any reason why annotate.texi shouldn't be @include'd by
> gdb.texinfo and be part of the manual?  Right now, "set annotate" is
> not documented at all, and annotate.texi seems to be just what the
> doctor ordered...

This is on my long-term wish list for the manual, along with agentexpr
info.  My guiding principle is that the manual should document
everything that a user can do with GDB, so it should include information
about builtin protocols, such as annotation, remote debug, and MI.

Conversely, the internals manual is for anything that involves looking
at GDB's source code.

> And while at that, NEWS seems to be in the need of some work, it
> doesn't mention many of the new features that already are in the CVS
> tree.  I would like at least to mention the improvements in the DJGPP
> version.

Yes please.  To paraphrase the esteemed Dr Wirtiglieben, when speaking
of the Doomsday Device:

    VUT GOOD IS IT IF NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT!!??

:-)

But seriously, everybody doing a checkin should ask themselves: will
users want to know about this change?  Usually the answer will be
yes; users complain about lack of information far more often than
about overloaded...

Stan