From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3894 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2005 10:56:55 -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 3860 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2005 10:56:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 Feb 2005 10:56:50 -0000 Received: from zaretski (pns03-205-52.inter.net.il [80.230.205.52]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id DTA51626 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 12 Feb 2005 12:56:07 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 13:10:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Daniel Jacobowitz Message-ID: <01c510f0$Blat.v2.4$f7cb04c0@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20050211183109.GA1889@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:31:09 -0500) Subject: Re: [commit] mark up quit et.al. Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <420CF63E.2000300@gnu.org> <20050211183109.GA1889@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00117.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:31:09 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:15:26PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > FYI, > > committed, > > Andrew > > Perhaps you should wait for someone to proofread this sort of thing. It looks like Andrew has switched to ``commit'em-all-without-asking'' method, even for patches outside of his domain. When someone posts an objection about such a policy, that objection is simply ignored. Here's one more objection that will probably be ignored: ANDREW, WOULD YOU PLEASE STOP DOING THAT? > > @@ -995,7 +995,7 @@ insert_bp_location (struct bp_location * > > } > > else > > { > > - printf_filtered ("Hardware watchpoint %d deleted ", bpt->owner->number); > > + printf_filtered (_("Hardware watchpoint %d deleted "), bpt->owner->number); > > printf_filtered ("because the program has left the block \n"); > > printf_filtered ("in which its expression is valid.\n"); > > if (bpt->owner->related_breakpoint) > > For instance, this one is bogus. Indeed. And I have more comments about that patch (working on it as we speak). It's beyond me why such a large patch needed to be committed without asking for a review.