MI patch criteria

Andrew Cagney ac131313@cygnus.com
Wed Jun 27 21:30:00 GMT 2001

> Hello,
> 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)
> Andrew

No comment was the loud reply.  I'm going to assume this is so.  To be 
honest I think this is significant and over all positive, MI offers a 
robust way of testing LIBGDB as it evolves.


More information about the Gdb mailing list