Derek Fountain

I've updated my master branch with the latest upstream code (and the cherry picked commits from this merge request). My fork has therefore changed a fair bit. If you want to keep a fork of my fork, I suggest you update everything.

I suggest you keep your work better separated. The Fedora work shouldn't be in with the tagged debug file work, it should be in a separate branch. Or at least don't merge different bits of work into one merge request! Thanks for the contribution! That's a first for me. :)

I've set the merge request to "merged" on the basis I've merged some of it. I don't know if that's how SourceForge works? There isn't an option to say "merged some".

enhancements to debug tagged source view

Right, I had a look at your merge request. I don't use Fedora, don't understand what you've done, and couldn't support it if I merged it. So I won't be taking those bits. I don't know what the AC_PROG_SED thing is for. Maybe something to do with the Fedora work? It doesn't seem to do anything useful as far as I can see. The 2 tagged debug file commits are useful, though, so thanks for those. :) So I've cherry-picked those 2 commits and left the rest behind.

OK, first thing I did was update my fork from upstream (i.e. Fuse). I don't really know the best workflow for this. Some people suggest keeping the fork's master branch the same as upstream and doing everything in local branches. Bit late for that, I think. Fortunately I did a fetch and merge from upstream and it worked. :) I have a feeling I'm going to get bitten by my current configuration when something significant goes into upstream, but for now it's OK.

Hmmm, a merge request in SourceForge? I've never had one of those before. I've also let my Fuse fork get left behind a bit. So you've given me some work to do. :) Let me catch up...

debugger tagged source view: add command line option to directly specify tagged source file