This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 21:44:04 -0700
If a contributor wants to add new code, or fix bugs in existing code,they should not be increasing the use of existing deprecated mechanisms (after all we should be able to reasonably expect contributors to not make matters worse). The prime motivator here should our joint goal to make GDB the best debgger possible, and more immediatly our desire to fix bugs such as those identified by my rewritten structs.exp. As for other code, let it bitrot and die.
I agree with much of what you say, but I really can't agree with the last part. There is a quite a lot of code which simply cannot be allowed to "bitrot and die".
From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
I have already stated that I think the renaming of deprecated interfaces is okay in some instances. I am concerned, however, that this approach is being used in instances where it doesn't really need to be.
Seconded.
Can we conclude this thread by agreeing that renaming of deprecated
interfaces should be discussed first in cases such as STREQ? I think everybody agreed on that at some point.
- the now obsolete interface and mechanism get explicitly deprecated (or removed, depending on how risky it is)
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |