x86 fpu
Jim Blandy
jimb@cygnus.com
Thu Oct 21 14:40:00 GMT 1999
> I believe that H.J.'s private versions of the GNU toolchain have been
> a great disservice to both the GNU/Linux and the larger GNU
> community.
I don't really agree. I think there are several problems with the way
they've been handled, by various parties, but in principle I think
they're an okay thing.
The proper role of a patch set series is to allow some slack between
Linux and the standard GDB distribution. Linux users don't have to
wait until the next GDB release to get a bug fixed. For the GDB
maintainers, the patch set can also serve as a guide to what needs to
get fixed --- it's a screened list of bug reports.
However, H.J.'s patch sets have been pushed to meet demands beyond
what they can do well. This happened for various reasons:
- For a while, GDB releases were not frequent enough. Under such
conditions, patch sets will inevitably get uncomfortably large. The
situation is improving, here.
- For a while, the GDB maintainers did not spend much time trying to
incorporate fixes from the net, or working with contributors to get
things in. I hope this has changed. I know a lot of us at Cygnus
have worked to improve this.
- If I were to fault H. J. at all, I might wish that he were more
sympathetic to maintainer's objections to patches. It's appropriate
for a maintainer to push back on the submitter of a patch to clean
it up, but sometimes I've felt as if H. J. were saying, "Well, it
works for me --- take it or leave it."
The rules for patch sets should be:
- The GDB maintainers spend time incorporating patches, and make frequent
releases, so the patch set can stay small.
- The patch set maintainer works to adapt patches to maintainers'
concerns, again, so the patch set can stay small.
If handled that way, I think they're a healthy thing.
More information about the Gdb
mailing list