|
From: Nicholas N. <nj...@cs...> - 2006-09-07 07:49:33
|
On Thu, 7 Sep 2006, Josef Weidendorfer wrote: > I think it would be better for experimental tools to first live outside > of VGs core code base; we should provide an example "external VG tool > package". I did this a long time with callgrind, and it was > working quite well (with the exception of biarch). I disagree. This was the approach we took with Callgrind for a long time, but in hindsight I think it was the wrong one. Presence in the distribution gives a tool much more exposure, and I think it makes it more likely that new tools will become popular and good. I think it's a good idea to make things more open where possible, because currently too much responsibility lies on Julian's shoulders -- he only has so many hours in the day. This is one attempt to open things up, and I think it's a good one because tools are nicely separate from the rest of the system -- if a tool is broken it doesn't drag the rest of the system down. Another area in which it would be nice to have this mature/experimental divide is in ports to new platforms. Unfortunately ports are less modular than tools, so the mechanics of how to do this are less clear. Nick |