From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 118279 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2019 10:19:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 118270 invoked by uid 89); 26 Apr 2019 10:19:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-9.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=structured, HX-Languages-Length:521, him X-HELO: relay.fit.cvut.cz Received: from relay.fit.cvut.cz (HELO relay.fit.cvut.cz) (147.32.232.237) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Apr 2019 10:19:51 +0000 Received: from imap.fit.cvut.cz (imap.fit.cvut.cz [147.32.232.238]) by relay.fit.cvut.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x3QAJlpi042520 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 26 Apr 2019 12:19:48 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz) Received: from sao (02d97c6d.bb.sky.com [2.217.124.109] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0 as user vranyj1) by imap.fit.cvut.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x3QAJjml094588 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Fri, 26 Apr 2019 12:19:46 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz) Message-ID: <0ac8d85a9940db7f7f2ebdd9dc5afbd30fe6a27e.camel@fit.cvut.cz> Subject: Re: [RFC 6/8] mi/python: Handle python exception when executiong python-defined MI commands From: Jan Vrany To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 10:19:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87pnp97tqz.fsf@tromey.com> References: <20190418152337.6376-1-jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> <20190418152337.6376-7-jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> <87pnp97tqz.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-04/txt/msg00571.txt.bz2 > This seems reasonable but it also seems like it should just be part of > the patch adding this new function. If you're worried about joint > authorship, it's pretty common to just list two names in the ChangeLog. > Yes, that's the reason why commits are structured this way. I did not want to change Didier's commuts without him. I'll do as you suggested and squash commits. Thanks for reviewing! Jan > thanks, > Tom