DMI progress and some news

I'm keen to know if there is still interest in this
initiative. I  
think that an MI standard is very desirable, particularly
given the  
number of GUI debuggers that are available today. Do people
think  
that we should continue with this effort? What are the main
issues  
preventing people contributing? Is it not knowing how to
proceed,  
lack of resources, or other issues? I'm willing to put some
more  
effort into finishing the document, but I'll need some help,
 
particularly with the specific implementations.

Regards,

Greg


On Nov 6, 2006, at 11:13 PM, Susan Macchia wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
>
>
> There are a couple of things I'd like to say:
>
> (1) on DMI progress:
>
>     I realize that activity on getting a specification
going has  
> slowed to a crawl.  Part of that is
>     because I have been busy and unable to find the
time to push  
> you guys - said with , and
>     of course everyone is busy, that is understood. 
But I still  
> believe that it is important to
>     standardize the MI protocol so that debuggers can
implement to  
> that standard and be
>     able to plug into different environments.  I know
that Apple  
> has made some changes that
>     could be for the better, and this is the kind of
thing we want  
> to discuss here & then add
>     to the spec.  Eventually these changes would
migrate to gdb in  
> open source.
>
>
>
> (2) Some news:
>
>     I am leaving Intel to pursue an opportunity at
Draeger Medical  
> as a staff engineer.
>     I will be working on software for medical monitors
and will no  
> longer be in the tools
>     business.  Nov 10 is my last day.
>
>
>
>     Nevertheless, I can continue as the admin for the
site itself,  
> unless one of you signs
>     up for this (there really isn't much to do).  And I
will  
> continue to follow what happens
>     here since I am very interested in seeing a
standard for MI.
>
>
>
>     Greg Watson has agreed to take my place as the
driver for the  
> initiative (a BIG thank you,
>     Greg).
>
>
>
>
> So guys, what do we need to do to get the ball rolling?
>
> _____________________________
>
> Susan Macchia
>
> mailto:susansmacchia.net
>
> http://www.smacchia.net
>
> _____________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dmi-workgroup mailing list
> dmi-workgrouplists.freestandards.org
> http://lists.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/dmi
-workgroup

_______________________________________________
dmi-discuss mailing list
dmi-discusslists.freestandards.org
http://lists.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/dmi-d
iscuss

On Sun, Nov 26, 2006 at 07:43:06AM +1000, Greg Watson wrote:
> I'm keen to know if there is still interest in this
initiative. I  
> think that an MI standard is very desirable,
particularly given the  
> number of GUI debuggers that are available today. Do
people think  
> that we should continue with this effort? What are the
main issues  
> preventing people contributing? Is it not knowing how
to proceed,  
> lack of resources, or other issues? I'm willing to put
some more  
> effort into finishing the document, but I'll need some
help,  
> particularly with the specific implementations.

Speaking for myself, I am still interested, but not enough
to drive
progress; I'm occupied more than full time keeping GDB and
GDB/MI
working.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

_______________________________________________
dmi-discuss mailing list
dmi-discusslists.freestandards.org
http://lists.freestandards.org/mailman/listinfo/dmi-d
iscuss