From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23864 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2005 03:13:50 -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 23855 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jun 2005 03:13:47 -0000 Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 03:13:47 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p228-tnt1.snap.net.nz [202.124.110.228]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EE9D54EB1D; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:13:44 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id 9978962A99; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 04:15:35 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17074.16470.814479.200726@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 03:13:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] -data-list-changed-registers (Take 2) In-Reply-To: <20050617015059.GC17013@nevyn.them.org> References: <20050603223652.GA8203@nevyn.them.org> <17057.37727.725621.254956@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <17060.46539.131335.71422@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <17066.35303.833870.612064@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050613024022.GB9288@nevyn.them.org> <17069.4116.293354.462840@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050613134759.GA7102@nevyn.them.org> <17070.2773.135064.388886@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050613224215.GA13598@nevyn.them.org> <17070.17646.968472.157418@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050617015059.GC17013@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg00237.txt.bz2 > The only reason I haven't approved the gdb-mi.el you last posted was > because it depended on the MI patch which you just reminded me to look > at (which was an interface change, and I hadn't had a chance to > digest it yet). I do not want you to commit anything which uses MI > interfaces that don't exist yet! Normally, I'd be perfectly willing to > rubber-stamp it in. I'm thinking more generally. In Emacs, I commit about one change a week. If I need approval, then I will group changes together and do it less often, but someone is always available to approve those changes then there is no problem. Nick