Re: Preparing for the GDB 5.0 / GDB 2000 / GDB2k release

[Kevin_Hendricks <khendricks at admin dot ivey dot uwo dot ca>]

Hi,


>If the author of the patches doesn't want to put them in as-is, I for one am 
not
>going to override him...

If you think back that same author did try to improve the linux side of things 
by incorporating changes and everyone jumped at him.  Once bitten ...

>Now you know why we don't want to just hack in patches, eh?

What you are really saying here is that is better *not* to get something into 
the tree that everyone can hack at and evenutully get to work.  Instead we never 
incorporate and hope for some miracle that it gets fixed.?.?.?

That logic is so completely flawed, that I am surprised you are defending it.

We, the ppc people, have seen 4.16.97, 4.17.X, 4.18.X, and now 5.X come (or 
coming) without support because of this "don't break anything mentality".  

Simply put isn't it just *better* to get in something and let the users help to 
clean it up, make it work, improve it.  As a professor of TQM, waiting for 
perfection is just not the way to achieve it.  Getting everyone involved is.

>> Why is gdb so different?
>
>I'm most familiar with GCC, and one big difference between GCC and GDB is that
>GCC has more maintainers. 

>> Why can't it open up it process of getting patches in?
>
>If by "open up", you mean "lower the standards", then no

No, I mean get the patches out there even if things break.  Let *everyone* test 
and improve them.  As it is now, you hold out patches waiting for what?

>> Why is gdb development not geared to support Linux (any architecture) in any
>> reasonable manner?
>
>What do you mean by this?  I don't see the development as being "geared" in any
>way - the development is driven by maintainers and contributors, all of whom we
>know by name.  So if something is happening or not happening, it's because
>particular people are or are not working on it.  If you mean "why is Kevin 
Buettner
>not working on PowerPC GDB enough" :-), you can ask him that directly.

No, I mean why is Linux at the bottom of the barrel in priorities and not at the 
top of the barrel.  Why are linux patches not given some priority.  Most other 
platforms have their own debuggers, tools, compilers.  That is simply not the 
case with Linux.  gdb, gcc, glibc, binutils are our *ONLY* tools.  

Doesn't that mean anything?

All I am asking is to please get something (however imperfect) into the tree and 
let us hack on it to improve it.  Your approach is so hierachical (i.e. assumes 
only the maintainer can do the work).  If you don't have enough maintainers (see 
your earlier comment) let the users help.  We (the users) may not be perfect, we 
may not be right, but we can help and do so in most other projects.

I feel strongly that the gdb patch process is seriously flawed.  You obviously 
don't agree.  

Please check out the mailing list archive and look at the "attitude" displayed 
to patch submitters (Kevin Buettner's patch included) over the last year or so 
and then tell me if you really think the process is okay.  Every patch is simply 
"wrong in some way" and that simply can not and should not be.

I am not attacking people here.  I am attacking the process and hoping for some 
serious process changes / improvements.


Am I all wet?  Am I the only one that views things this way?

Thanks for listening.  

I will not post again on this subject since I am not sure I am adding any value.

Kevin


--
Kevin B. Hendricks
Associate Professor of Operations and Information Technology
Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario  N6A-3K7  CANADA   
khendricks@ivey.uwo.ca, (519) 661-3874, fax: 519-661-3959