From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8142 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2005 20:24:45 -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 8129 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2005 20:24:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Feb 2005 20:24:40 -0000 Received: from zaretski (tony06-88-59.inter.net.il [80.230.88.59]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id ANW35889 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:23:31 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:35:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-ID: <01c5139c$Blat.v2.4$3abb3360@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <421246C4.8060003@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:00:20 -0500) Subject: Re: [commit] Mark up add_com, add_info and add_prefix_cmd Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <421219BE.3060509@gnu.org> <20050215160051.GA25376@nevyn.them.org> <421246C4.8060003@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00154.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:00:20 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > Andrew, both Eli and I have asked you to stop doing committing these > > patches. > > (Which is funny. When I indicated that I was stopping dw_op_piece > patches, you had the exact oposite reaction. I guess you need > DW_OP_piece but not i18n) So do you think Daniel was right or wrong back then? If he was right, why did you object? And if he was wrong, why are you doing the same now? > I'm doing my job as head developer Your job as head developer doesn't give you a prerogative to commit changes over numerious objections of your fellow maintainers, some of whom know about i18n much more than you do. I will ask again: please stop this antisocial conduct. > putting in the hard yards needed to fix this tedious, long standing, > and very long overdue problem in GDB - getting bulk of the text > marked up. And I made a point of thanking you for doing that job. But waiting for a day or two to hear comments about the proposed patches will not hamper your work in any way (you could in the meantime work on the next chunk of patches). OTOH, the way you do it now could easily cause permanent damage to the GDB collaboration spirit. Why is a risk of small delays worth that? For that matter, what is the rush to have i18n right now? Do we have any deadlines on i18n support, and if so, what are those deadlines and who set them? > On the other hand, what I'm seeing from each of you is trivial > complaints and objections serving no purpose other than to block this task. So you are saying that the comments I posted to your patches are useless, and no more than ``trivial complaints and objections''? Would you like me to stop reviewing any further patches, or perhaps even resign altogether as a GDB maintainer? Thinking about that, perhaps we should all resign and leave you alone maintaining GDB--that would certainly solve quite a few problems that annoy you now...