Re: Current Status of Insight

[Keith Seitz <keiths at redhat dot com>]

On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 21:10 -1100, Steven Johnson wrote:

> I seem to recall there was a falling out between FSF and Redhat over 
> Insight. (I do not know exactly what about, and if i did i wouldnt have 
> a position either way) and at about the same time (V5.3) vintage (around 
> 2 years ago) Insight stopped being
> (a) actively developed and
> (b) released in synch with the GDB mainline.

Actually, the "falling out" was between Cygnus Solutions (acquired by
Red Hat in January 2000) and the FSF. The FSF labeled Tcl as "evil" and
consequently refused to allow Cygnus to assign the tcl sources to the
FSF.

They've since lost that attitude, but unfortunately, Red Hat does not
consider Insight worthy of their attorney's time to review and sign the
paperwork.

> There was a time when GDB X.YY would be released and insight X.YY seemed 
> to be there right along with it, that was a long time ago now.

Andrew Cagney (the GDB maintainer) decided that enough was enough. If
Insight isn't officially assigned to the FSF, he was under no obligation
to spin the release for it (even though it cost him nothing to do it).
So no more snapshots, releases, tagging the sources, etc.

> My email is basically a query on the status, is Insight alive and well?
> Is the FSF/Redhat thing over Insight resolved?

Sadly, the answer to both is "no".

> Is there a road map for re-synching Insight with GDB releases, so people 
> dont get stuck using an over 2 year old version (cause the web site says 
> thats the latest stable version).  Telling people to use CVS_HEAD is 
> hardly ideal.  It doesnt really inspire confidence in stability.  
> Although I understand that might be the best answer anyone can currently 
> give.

A group in Red Hat re-hired me in 2001 to work on insight. About a year
later, I was transferred to another group with different
responsibilities. By then, my old group was already wanting to replace
insight, and they were relying on me to develop Insight for them (for
nothing). I did that for over a year, all the while trying to get the
sources donated to the FSF. I gave up.

If this group wanted Insight development, they would have to rely on the
community or pay for it. They still use insight and, predictably,
complain like bloody hell when it doesn't work. Yet they refuse to do
anything about it.

> Or should I use DDD (which i dont really like, because i think Motif 
> must have been designed by people that had no eyes, and was then hit 
> with the ugly stick 3 times on birth. [Personal opinion, Motif guys if 
> you like how it looks, more power to you])

DDD, Eclipse CDT, xgdb (and friends) are all still options. I admit,
though, I still use Insight from CVS head. IMO, it will be quite some
time before something can match the simplecity of the UI and the speed
of insight.

> Is Insight CVS_HEAD currently in-synch with GDB 6.3?  If so, could an 
> Insight 6.3 be cut and released as a stable version?  If not whats the 
> impediment?

It is my goal to keep CVS HEAD buildable. I don't always notice when it
is buildable, but when I do (or someone else like Martin Hunt, Ben
Elliston, and a few others does), it is fixed in a pretty timely manner.

> Im happy to do the checking out and packaging of the source (if someone 
> can tell me the appropriate CVS tag to use), and web site updating if 
> thats all it requires.

That certainly wouldn't hurt. If you really want to do this, let me know
(off-list) and I will send necessary info.

The real question is: Is it worth it? Does anyone really care anymore?

At one time I considered branching, dumping all the Tcl code (assigned
to Red Hat) and rewriting in some form of gtk (all new code assigned to
FSF). I don't believe there is enough interest to justify this work,
though.

Keith