From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Rocky Bernstein" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: removing bushdb related code in gud.el Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:26:48 -0500 Message-ID: <6cd6de210702252026o58f3ed20jebc0e6c3f29da446@mail.gmail.com> References: <20070226.024211.256833758.jet@gyve.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1588507799==" X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1172519352 21543 80.91.229.12 (26 Feb 2007 19:49:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:49:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Masatake YAMATO , bashdb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 26 20:49:04 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HLlqG-000162-N4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 20:49:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLlqF-000399-VP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:49:00 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HLXRs-0003eN-9j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:26:52 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1HLXRp-0003eB-Qj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:26:51 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HLXRp-0003e8-Lk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:26:49 -0500 Original-Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.188]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1HLXRp-00051z-0u for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:26:49 -0500 Original-Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id h2so1581801nfe for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:26:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=p9qrUBiirPVpeTvtO8Y1GjrobG8+rZGKHCgd+8OnyMTDcXVQqaXIsk/5XXVlYfKE4Kwu/XgAOCA5c+Yenphj5KGSglPqML2Uje8l8X1O+3LEwLztAvd2Q1ZXiw9sT26O8+xQhm8vH9I95SA1hadbUcxvOv8G7rWVCtQCY7QSInM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=nrndWXCm/2598YBPx+2MOvgy2ThppoEVaIv5eDZiiJevN4TjFKhSSUsthxU1H5wH+MKm0DOEkrIgLj8BZDqFLfDNLVGn9byY4vsgRsWoCnIWMM8ZeZAqsjmyKQxlmtpGm2PWxMu4nHUpKhFJBgB3X48Dgv8Rt8IQJBJ9jLeUX2E= Original-Received: by 10.82.114.3 with SMTP id m3mr1485839buc.1172464008141; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:26:48 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.82.152.4 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:26:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-detected-kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 (Google crawlbot) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 14:48:48 -0500 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:66867 Archived-At: --===============1588507799== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_63768_3408006.1172464008096" ------=_Part_63768_3408006.1172464008096 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline You are correct that a protocol number has advantages in that it guarantees folks get a minimum version of GNU Emacs bashdb support. However given other circumstances, the real here benefit to everyone is negligible. bashdb is not distributed as part of bash right now and in order to do any sort of debugging you need bashdb installed. So it's possible (in fact likely) that folks will install GNU Emacs but not have this add-on and things are broken. In theory the GNU Emacs gud code could check for the presence of bashdb, but it doesn't yet (and it might be cumbersome to write). Furthermore, the issues we've been seeing aren't so much that the underlying protocol changes (so things break), as much as where bugs tend to get reported, the speed of fixes, and frequency of user-visible releases of minor improvements and enhancements. For example, the last change involved changing a regular expression to accommodate Microsoft Windows. As part of that fix, we added a little regression test for that case. I believe this fix is part of the last release. It is not clear that had the bug finder reported this to via the GNU Emacs channels, the change would have be visible to users as soon, or that there would have been a regression test added. bashdb has and advantage or disadvantage of being much smaller than GNU Emacs. Therefore we are able to be more agile. Finally, I think the argument is also equally valid the other way around too. If gud had a protocol number, it would help bashdb.el and other add-ons, like the debugger for GNU Make for which there is a corresponding GNU Emacs interface. That GNU Emacs lisp code would check against a protocol number instead of GNU Emacs major/minor version numbers and adjust accordingly. On 2/25/07, Richard Stallman wrote: > > To avoid users' confusion, we'd like to move bashdb related code( > bashdb.el) > in gud.el to bashdb itself. So we can provide well updated bashdb.elin > bashdb release. > > Wouldn't it be better to have a protocol version number? > Then Emacs could still have the code, but if you change the protocol, > you would update the protocol version number. Then the code in Emacs > would say "you need to install bashdb.el from . > ------=_Part_63768_3408006.1172464008096 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline You are correct that a protocol number has advantages in that it  guarantees folks get a minimum version of GNU Emacs bashdb support. However given other circumstances,  the real here benefit to everyone is negligible.

bashdb is not distributed as part of bash right now and in order to do any sort of debugging you  need bashdb installed. So it's possible (in fact likely) that folks will install GNU Emacs but not have this add-on and things are broken. In theory the GNU Emacs gud code could check for the presence of bashdb, but it doesn't yet (and it might be cumbersome to write).

Furthermore, the issues we've been seeing aren't so much that the underlying protocol changes (so things break), as much as where bugs  tend to get  reported, the speed of fixes, and frequency of user-visible releases of minor improvements and enhancements. For example, the last change involved changing a regular expression to accommodate Microsoft Windows. As part of that fix, we added a little regression test for that case. I believe this fix is part of the last release.

It is not clear that had the bug finder reported this to via the GNU Emacs channels, the change would have be visible  to users as soon, or that there would have been a regression test added. bashdb has and advantage or disadvantage of being much smaller than GNU Emacs. Therefore we are able to be more agile.

Finally, I think the argument is also equally valid the other way around too. If gud had a protocol number,  it would help bashdb.el and other add-ons, like the debugger for GNU Make for which there is a corresponding GNU Emacs interface. That GNU Emacs lisp code  would check against  a protocol number instead of GNU Emacs major/minor version numbers and adjust accordingly.


On 2/25/07, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
    To avoid users' confusion, we'd like to move bashdb related code(bashdb.el)
     in gud.el to bashdb itself. So we can provide well updated bashdb.el in
    bashdb release.

Wouldn't it be better to have a protocol version number?
Then Emacs could still have the code, but if you change the protocol,
you would update the protocol version number.  Then the code in Emacs
would say "you need to install bashdb.el from <wherever>.

------=_Part_63768_3408006.1172464008096-- --===============1588507799== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel --===============1588507799==--