Re: recent dejagnu changes

[Jimmy Guo <guo at cup dot hp dot com>]

It looks to me that you are just happy in the patch back-out business
and waving hands post-mortem.  I'd never thought asking for your input
is something that big of a deal!  You came in, proceeding to back out a
change without any details, except for nonsences like "this will never
work", or "unwise" ... while I earnestly tried to get the best out of it
by working with you to understand what broke and trying to make sure it
wouldn't occur again.  I guess you've spent more time in this thread
than simply be a bit more helpful and try the patch out ... 

In principle I agree with your patch approval process ... in reality
would you say you've never encountered a case where it would be more
difficult for you to test something under certain configuration than
asking whoever raised the hand to try it out?  So much for the spirit of
cooperation on this silly little dejagnu change ... no hard feelings at
my side if they are rejected, cause I'm happy with what I've fixed in my
environment, and I know this dejagnu problem won't bite me again.

- Jimmy

>I don't know how it works in GDB-land, but the GCC patch approval
>process requires that you include in your message how it was tested.
>Failure to test appropriately can cause your patch to be rejected.  In
>this case, since we already know the patch had problems with the GCC
>testsuite, I would immediately reject any patch that doesn't say that
>it was tested with the GCC testsuite.
>
>So you can consider your patch pre-rejected.
>
>dejagnu is shared between GDB, GCC, and binutils, just as BFD is
>shared between binutils and GDB.  For such shared code, it is
>extremely impolite to make a change without testing it on all the
>users.
>-- 
>- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>