Removing breakpoints/debugging stuff from CVS head

Removing breakpoints/debugging stuff from CVS head

[Neil Jerram]

Would anyone object if I deleted my work on breakpoints and
debugging-in-Emacs from CVS head?  To be precise, this means deleting:

guile-core/emacs/README.GDS
guile-core/emacs/gds*
ice-9/debugger/*

and backing out some associated changes to ice-9/debugger.scm (+ NEWS,
Makefile.am etc).

The reasons are that

- the mainline of this work is now in the separate guile-debugging
project (hosted on Gna!)

- the stuff in CVS is obsolete (with respect to the guile-debugging
mainline)

- while it is still under development, it's more convenient to keep this
work in a separate project, because it means that I can target
guile-debugging releases at the most recent widely available stable
Guile (instead of trying to squeeze in the work before the next stable
core release).

Regards,
	Neil


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Removing breakpoints/debugging stuff from CVS head

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

On 6/12/05, Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> wrote:
> Would anyone object if I deleted my work on breakpoints and
> debugging-in-Emacs from CVS head?  To be precise, this means deleting:
> 
> guile-core/emacs/README.GDS
> guile-core/emacs/gds*
> ice-9/debugger/*
> 
> and backing out some associated changes to ice-9/debugger.scm (+ NEWS,
> Makefile.am etc).
> 
> The reasons are that
> 
> - the mainline of this work is now in the separate guile-debugging
> project (hosted on Gna!)
> 
> - the stuff in CVS is obsolete (with respect to the guile-debugging
> mainline)
> 
> - while it is still under development, it's more convenient to keep this
> work in a separate project, because it means that I can target
> guile-debugging releases at the most recent widely available stable
> Guile (instead of trying to squeeze in the work before the next stable
> core release).

I think that, from the point of view of the user, debugging tools are
very central. So, it would be unfortunate if the core guile release
tar archives (guile-X.X.X.tar.gz) did not contain the Guile debugger.
It is also my guess that RMS would strongly agree on this.

So, my opinion is that the core guile releases should contain the
debugger. Given that, I think it is of lesser importance how exactly
to administer the development, but it may still seem convenient to
keep the debugger under guile-core CVS.

And, if you decide to make guile-core releases without the debugger,
it might be a good idea if Marius or you consult with RMS first.

Best regards,
Mikael


_______________________________________________
Guile-user mailing list
Guile-user@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user

Re: Removing breakpoints/debugging stuff from CVS head

[Neil Jerram]

Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> 
> I think that, from the point of view of the user, debugging tools are
> very central.

Can I just check that you're not misunderstanding me?  I am not at all
suggesting the removal of any of the core infrastructure that was there
before I started playing with things, or of ice-9/debugger.scm as it has
existed for some time, or the ability to type (debug) and get a command
line debugger.  I am only talking of the Scheme and Emacs Lisp pieces
that I have been building experimentally on top of that infrastructure
(and in CVS 1.7.x HEAD only, which means that my stuff has never been
released yet, except in the 2 preview snapshots).

> So, it would be unfortunate if the core guile release
> tar archives (guile-X.X.X.tar.gz) did not contain the Guile debugger.
> It is also my guess that RMS would strongly agree on this.

Once the basic development is done, I completely agree that debugging
tools belong in the core distribution.  While the work is still in
progress, however, it's tactically preferable not to make what I can do
dependent on the core release status and schedule.

What this means in practice is two things.  Firstly, I have been able to
target my guile-debugging work so far at 1.6, which makes sense to me in
general because 1.6 is the most widely installed distribution, and in
particular because I have been using 1.6 for a project at work.  I would
not be able to do this work in 1.6 core CVS, because 1.6.x is stable and
we are not putting new features into it.

Secondly, it means that I can work on 1.8 support in my own time once
1.8 is released, as opposed to either (i) holding up the 1.8 release or
(ii) trying to complete what's needed more quickly than I'd like to meet
a release date.  (When the 1.8 support comes, there will probably be
associated 1.8 core bug fixes as well, but that's OK because they can go
in during the 1.8 stable series.)

Do you agree that this makes sense?

(These things might count less if we had more frequent releases ... but
we don't.)

> And, if you decide to make guile-core releases without the debugger,
> it might be a good idea if Marius or you consult with RMS first.

I find it difficult to see why this should be needed.  Do you still
think this, taking into account my comments above?

	Neil


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Removing breakpoints/debugging stuff from CVS head

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

On 6/12/05, Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> wrote:
> Can I just check that you're not misunderstanding me?

I did. You wrote that you would remove ice-9/debugger/*, so I thought
you would, for example, remove
guile-core/ice-9/debugger/command-loop.scm which is part of what
happens when you type (debug).

> > And, if you decide to make guile-core releases without the debugger,
> > it might be a good idea if Marius or you consult with RMS first.
> 
> I find it difficult to see why this should be needed.  Do you still
> think this, taking into account my comments above?

Nope. I agree that, if the emacs interface is still under development,
one could postpone maintaining it in and releaseing it from the core
package.

M


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Removing breakpoints/debugging stuff from CVS head

[Neil Jerram]

Mikael Djurfeldt wrote:
> On 6/12/05, Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> wrote:
> 
>>Can I just check that you're not misunderstanding me?
> 
> 
> I did. You wrote that you would remove ice-9/debugger/*, so I thought
> you would, for example, remove
> guile-core/ice-9/debugger/command-loop.scm which is part of what
> happens when you type (debug).

Yes, I did say that - sorry, I didn't mean to.  For the sake of
reassurance (and review), I'll try again:

ice-9/debugger.scm - leave as is, except for removal of calls to gds-*
procedures

ice-9/debugger/behaviour.scm - remove

ice-9/debugger/breakpoints/* - remove

ice-9/debugger/breakpoints.scm - remove

ice-9/debugger/command-loop.scm - leave as is, except for removal of
define-command forms for continue, finish, trace-finish, step, next

ice-9/debugger/commands.scm - leave as is, except for removal of
continue, finish, trace-finish, step, next, assert-continuable, and
#:use-module forms for (ice-9 debugger behaviour) for (ice-9 debugger
trap-hooks)

ice-9/debugger/state.scm - leave as is

ice-9/debugger/trap-hooks.scm - remove

ice-9/debugger/trc.scm - leave as is

ice-9/debugger/utils.scm - leave as is

> 
> 
>>>And, if you decide to make guile-core releases without the debugger,
>>>it might be a good idea if Marius or you consult with RMS first.
>>
>>I find it difficult to see why this should be needed.  Do you still
>>think this, taking into account my comments above?
> 
> 
> Nope. I agree that, if the emacs interface is still under development,
> one could postpone maintaining it in and releaseing it from the core
> package.

Thanks, and sorry for worrying you!

	Neil


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel

Re: Removing breakpoints/debugging stuff from CVS head

[Neil Jerram]

Neil Jerram wrote:
> 
> Yes, I did say that - sorry, I didn't mean to.  For the sake of
> reassurance (and review), I'll try again: [...]

This removal is now complete - please let me know if you see any problems.

	Neil


_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel