From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4993 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2004 07:20:14 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4981 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2004 07:20:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Sep 2004 07:20:11 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.141.45]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR) with ESMTP id COK06521 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:19:57 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:20:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-ID: <01c49af4$Blat.v2.2.2$56b4be40@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <4146070D.3040104@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:46:05 -0400) Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <413C6E8E.6030607@gnu.org> <01c49441$Blat.v2.2.2$ead61420@zahav.net.il> <413E25F6.7020908@gnu.org> <01c49557$Blat.v2.2.2$23f700a0@zahav.net.il> <413F170A.2070005@gnu.org> <01c495b7$Blat.v2.2.2$1f83c660@zahav.net.il> <20040908152315.GA28927@nevyn.them.org> <01c4961e$Blat.v2.2.2$d00fd3e0@zahav.net.il> <20040909035336.GA30215@nevyn.them.org> <01c49621$Blat.v2.2.2$eb2d05a0@zahav.net.il> <20040909124755.GA8559@nevyn.them.org> <01c4969e$Blat.v2.2.2$0e5a13c0@zahav.net.il> <414479DB.4090207@gnu.org> <01c498f8$Blat.v2.2.2$2c6144e0@zahav.net.il> <4145AE6F.6070005@gnu.org> <01c499c9$Blat.v2.2.2$deebfb60@zahav.net.il> <4146070D.3040104@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:46:05 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > Great! So you've gone out and committed a patch over an objection of > > a core maintainer who worked quite a bit on the releated code. > > No. The changes that in anyway formalize the deprecation of all this: > [...] > and that you have so stridently objected to, are still all sitting on > the table. That doesn't matter: you still did something unilaterally instead of first asking if that is okay with me and others. No matter how much you are annoyed by failing to get an agreement, it doesn't mean you should do things unilaterally. There's nothing wrong, in principle, in the fact that I object to something ``so stridently''; others, yourself included, are known to use the same practices on many occasions. AFIR, no one has as yet committed a patch over your objections in such a situation. I request that you do the same here and in similar cases in the future. TIA