From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-36204-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 8002 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2004 09:47:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 7995 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2004 09:47:17 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Oct 2004 09:47:17 -0000
Received: from zaretski (pns03-208-187.inter.net.il [80.230.208.187])
	by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR)
	with ESMTP id CTV08258 (AUTH halo1);
	Fri, 8 Oct 2004 11:47:12 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 09:47:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
Message-ID: <01c4ad1b$Blat.v2.2.2$76b4d020@zahav.net.il>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-reply-to: <41646F7D.4070005@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Wed, 06
	Oct 2004 18:19:41 -0400)
Subject: Re: [patch;rfa:doc] 5.2.50 on mainline
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <41508EC1.9040506@gnu.org> <4162E976.50803@gnu.org> <01c4ab94$Blat.v2.2.2$7296a000@zahav.net.il> <41646F7D.4070005@gnu.org>
X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00143.txt.bz2

> Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2004 18:19:41 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> > Given the discussions about finding out MI versions, do we perhaps
> > want to tell vendors not to embed whitespace in their identifiers?
> 
> I don't see it as a problem.

In my experience, whitespace make the automated parsing harder.  But
if no one else sees this as a problem, I won't object.

> >>> ! @item all commits shall be covered by an assignment
> > Don't you need "should be covered"?
> 
> Shall.  It's a strict requirement.

Well, the text says ``guidelines'', not ``requirements''.  Also, do we
really expect the reader of those to be fluent with the conventions of
MIL-STD-489 and its ilk?  If not, ``shall'' sounds bad English in this
context, IMHO.

Otherwise, fine with me, thanks.