MI patch criteria

Andrew Cagney ac131313@cygnus.com
Thu Jun 14 12:31:00 GMT 2001


Given two non Red Hat MI patches have appeared in the space of less than 
a week I'd better get my act together and open a discussion about the 
acceptance criteria for MI changes.

So first a little history.  When MI was being developed (within Cygnus) 
a lot of emphasis was put on testing and documentation.  It was intended 
for a commercial quality product (1).  To that end, there were pretty 
strict rules on when/what could go in:  All new commands had to be 
documented and tested; all bug fixes and to be tested (where possible).

Now that MI is out in the open and part of FSF GDB rather than a pet 
Cygnus project, I think it is time to table what were then internal to 
Cygnus criteria and open them up  for public discussion.

Personally I'd like to stick to the existing criteria vis:

	For new commands: doco + testsuite
	For bug fixes: testsuite (possibly doco)


(1) I think of a comercial quality product as something that can back up 
the answer to the question ``what bugs were fixed in this release?'' 
with hard evidence (eg the testsuite).  Often comercial software isn't 
commercial quality :-)

More information about the Gdb mailing list