This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Zaretskii Eli <ezaretski at elta dot co dot il>
- Cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>,Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>,Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:58:17 -0500
- Subject: Re: [maint] The GDB maintenance process
- References: <4D19136444628A40840EFE8C5AE04147017A44@ELTIMAIL1.elta.co.il>
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:55:21AM +0200, Zaretskii Eli wrote:
> This message was scanned for viruses and other malicious code by PrivaWall.
> This mail was sent from ELTA SYS LTD.
> > From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dberlin at dberlin dot org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 3:24 PM
> > > I guess I just don't see this to be as much of a problem as others
> > > For one thing, with the higher entropy level, more development
> > > happens.
> > Bingo.
> > I don't think we should stall development (and in the
> > extreme, even if
> > it means we can't make quality releases any day of the year) because
> > mistakes occasionally happen in patches, or because not every
> > maintainer in existence has said something about a patch. That's a
> > recipe for no progress.
> For some definition of ``progress''.
> Who said that adding code at a faster rate at the price of having more
> bugs is more ``progress'' than what we have now? There are people out
> there who need GDB to actually do something _useful_, not just to debug
> and/or develop GDB itself, you know. What about frustration of those
> GDB users when their favorite feature is broken by some
> committed-before-review patch that adds a hot new feature? Does that
> ever count?
I wouldn't have suggested this if I really thought that would happen.
> Does anyone remember that latest GCC releases are practically unusable
> for any production-quality work due to bugs? Does anyone even care?
And for the record, while I'd say that was true for 3.0, it was _not_
true for 3.1 or 3.2 or 3.2.1/3.2.2, which I consider production quality
compilers; and it won't be true for 3.3 either.
> Of course, if contributors are frustrated by the slow review rate, let's
> try to improve that (see my other mail). But let's not obscure our view
> of the problem by discussing abstract issues of ``progress''. An
> official release every 3 months is more than enough progress for my
Not if there's nothing much new in it. Which is a bit of an
exaggeration, before anyone calls me on it - but still pretty well
expresses my point.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer