[PATCH 1/4] GDBSERVER: Listen on a unix domain (instead of TCP) socket if requested.

[Sergio Durigan Junior]

On Monday, October 29 2018, John Darrington wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 03:51:55PM +0000, Simon Marchi wrote:
>      On 2018-10-29 5:11 a.m., Rainer Orth wrote:
>      > Hi John,
>      > 
>      >> However I've checked in a fix for this issue, and tested it by building
>      >> natively with a hacked set of standard include headers.
>      > 
>      > you always need to post patches here, if only for reference.
>      
> Doesn't that make the gdb-cvs list completely redundant?
>
>      Not only should you post here the patches you push as obvious, but I don't
>      think that this:
>      
>      https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=98a17ece013cb94cd602496b9efb92b8816b3953
>      
>      falls under the obvious rule:
>
> But a number of people had complained that their build was broken, and
> this was a fix for that.   I judged that in consideration of those
> people fixding their problem was more important than strict observance 
> of protocol.
>      
>      I can't judge whether the patch is right or not with a quick glance, but it
>      certainly is complex enough to warrant a discussion (as Rainer's reply below
>      shows).
>
>      
>      Additionally, it seems like the initial 4-patch series was pushed without
>      explicit approval from a maintainer (at least I can't find any).  Next time,
>      please wait to have an approval before pushing.  If you are not sure whether
>      a reply constitutes an a approval, it's better to ask the maintainer to
>      clarify.
>
> All of those patches were certainly discussed.   In the past, when I've
> followed up a person who has commented on a patch, but been vague about
> approval, I have had either a piqued response; or no response at all.

We were certainly discussing the patches, but they were not approved by
anyone.  It's also worth mentioning that I raised various points that
were not addressed (even though we discussed them).  It is still a
requirement that the patches need to be approved by at least one
maintainer before it is pushed to the repository.

> If you think it necesary however I can revert anything you think hasn't
> had enough discussion.

Yes, please.  The patch series is not ready to be pushed yet; there are
a bunch of points I raised that were not addressed (and are now causing
the failures).  I am not a global maintainer, but it is my opinion that
the patch series should be reverted for now.  We can continue discussing
and fixing things with it here in the list.

Thanks,

-- 
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF  31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/