Re: gdb Digest 7 Nov 2003 16:00:26 -0000 Issue 1325

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>]

Jim Ingham writes:
 > Elena,
 > 
 > On Nov 7, 2003, at 8:00 AM, gdb-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote:
 > 
 > > the objc support is in gdb mainline and it has been there for a while.
 > > There are some bugs still, but it was merged.
 > > Are you referring to something else?
 > 
 > Yes, I was referring to the very beginnings of Adam's work.  Since the 
 > tarball of the Apple sources were sitting on the FSF site, he naturally 
 > started from there.  But since they had been sitting for a while, the 
 > first task he faced was reconciling the changes in the relevant areas 
 > of the tarball with the changes in the FSF sources between the time the 
 > tarball was dropped and when he got it.  At that time, we were keeping 
 > pretty current with the FSF distro, so we had done this job already - 
 > and the results were readily available in our CVS repository.  IIRC, we 
 > figured out what was going on pretty quickly and set him straight, but 
 > that is the sort of pointless duplication of effort that it would be 
 > good to avoid.
 > 

I see. Are you still taking the fsf changes on a regular basis?  I
believe that having a source drop represents also kind of a formal
handoff, a sign that Apple was willingly giving some code back to the
community, and at least go through the motions, but maybe that's just
me.

 > >
 > > Same story for the interpreter stuff which Keith, Andrew and I merged.
 > >
 > 
 > I am pretty sure Keith worked from our CVS repository, at least that is 
 > what I urged him to do.  By the time you & Andrew got to it, I think 
 > the work was pretty far along, so you probably didn't have any need to 
 > refer to our version.

Yes we worked from the Apple CVS repo. I remember it was quite
cumbersome to get to it though, and I forgot the URL.

 > 
 > > I think we went through this before, with the previoius tarball.  If
 > > it's too hard a requirement, then let's forget about it. We'll live
 > > with the status quo.
 > 
 > It is obviously not hard but I worry it is likely to be 
 > counter-productive.  That was what we "went through before" and the 
 > event somewhat justified my concerns.
 > 
 > Pointing folks at our CVS repository is much easier, and we even have 
 > anonymous access now for those who don't want to give out their e-mail 
 > addresses...  Plus then they have all the benefits of CVS in trying to 
 > figure out why we did all the screwy things we did...
 > 

... the pointer is? 

elena

 > Jim
 > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
 > Jim Ingham                                                           
 > jingham@apple.com
 > Developer Tools - gdb