From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6820 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2004 10:53:50 -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 6810 invoked from network); 16 Sep 2004 10:53:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Sep 2004 10:53:49 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-206-187.inter.net.il [80.230.206.187]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR) with ESMTP id COR06085 (AUTH halo1); Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:53:45 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 10:53:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-ID: <01c49bdb$Blat.v2.2.2$5bc692e0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <4148692E.3000304@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:09:18 -0400) Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Eliminate TARGET_HAS_HARDWARE_WATCHPOINTS Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <413C6E8E.6030607@gnu.org> <01c49441$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$deebfb60@zahav.net.il> <4146070D.3040104@gnu.org> <01c49af4$Blat.v2.2.2$56b4be40@zahav.net.il> <4148692E.3000304@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:09:18 -0400 > From: Andrew Cagney > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > That doesn't matter: you still did something unilaterally instead of > > first asking if that is okay with me and others. > > Can you please provide a technical objection for the patch I committed. My point was procedural, not technical. This discussion identified a disagreement. When there is a disagreement, it is customary to ask for explicit approval to compromise solutions before implementing them, even if you are sure such an approval will be given. If nothing else, this encourages cooperation and the will to reach an agreement in the future. Unilateral actions, OTOH, have the reverse effect.