From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25125 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2004 20:55:52 -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 24601 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2004 20:55:30 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Nov 2004 20:55:30 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.154.117]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.5-GR) with ESMTP id DBR18802 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 22:54:26 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:55:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: cagney@gnu.org Message-ID: <01c4c766$Blat.v2.2.2$ce1fd200@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <01c4c6dd$Blat.v2.2.2$a3bf1ea0@zahav.net.il> (eliz@gnu.org) Subject: Re: [commit] Add add_setshow_enum_cmd, use in mips Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <01c4bed6$Blat.v2.2.2$fa231b20@zahav.net.il> <41856ECA.2060701@gnu.org> <01c4bfcd$Blat.v2.2.2$299ef260@zahav.net.il> <20041101051257.GA11134@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c057$Blat.v2.2.2$4cacd760@zahav.net.il> <20041101223716.GB28889@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c096$Blat.v2.2.2$d4f57520@zahav.net.il> <20041109011458.GA32113@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c618$Blat.v2.2.2$0b838560@zahav.net.il> <4190E1F8.7000203@gnu.org> <20041109184221.GB13359@nevyn.them.org> <01c4c6dd$Blat.v2.2.2$a3bf1ea0@zahav.net.il> X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 06:26:48 +0200 > From: "Eli Zaretskii" > CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 10:27:52AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > This whole thread is stupid. > > > > Thank you for being respectful to your fellow developers. It's nice to > > know we're appreciated. > > Same here. [Having given myself a few hours to cool down, I'm breathing again, and so can now try to respond rationally rather than emotionally.] > Before committing a patch as I did, I ask the question: > > ``Could a review significantly alter the change?'' > > Conversely, when reviewing a change, I ask: > > ``Is the objection going to significantly alter the change?'' > > Here, I cloned a pre-existing interface, adding another variant. Anyone > on this list with the problem I hit would have come up with an identical > change. > > Waiting a week would have achieved what? Let me turn the table, Andrew, and ask you what possible harm could be caused by posting the patch for review? At best, no one would have responded and you'd be committing the patch a week later. No harm done; case closed. At worst, someone _would_ have responded, and the patch would have been committed 7 days, instead of a week, later, after some short discussion. Again, no harm done. So there're no real disadvantages to posting the patch as an RFA, and a week doesn't seem like a high price to pay for having everybody happy.