From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7176 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2007 21:30:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 7163 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jan 2007 21:30:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:30:49 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (p202-124-120-214.snap.net.nz [202.124.120.214]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 818173D82A4; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:30:38 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id B649E4F6DF; Tue, 9 Jan 2007 10:30:36 +1300 (NZDT) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17826.47099.178726.701606@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:30:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: MI - Detecting change of string contents with variable objects In-Reply-To: <20070108155131.GA15412@nevyn.them.org> References: <17798.19683.251190.740216@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <17821.25837.573239.858406@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070104205039.GH24634@nevyn.them.org> <200701042358.59475.ghost@cs.msu.su> <17821.55336.12928.800849@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070105144926.GC24554@nevyn.them.org> <17822.51428.312664.972742@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070108155131.GA15412@nevyn.them.org> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.92.6 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00244.txt.bz2 > > I've also used: > > > > strcmp (var->print_value, print_value) != 0 > > > > since that method seems to be the norm in varobj.c, and GDB generally. > > Please, when you commit a patch, post it. That means the final > version, including a ChangeLog entry. I did this initially, but on re-reading CONTRIBUTE and MAINTAINERS I couldn't see why (perhaps Andrew instructed me). I stopped because I thought the posts were very similar to the previous one and I felt I was creating too much noise on gdb-patches. Also the mailing list gdb-cvs, which global maintainers are presumably subscribed to, provides this very information. > This holds for obvious patches, > patches that you commit with minor changes, whatever. I usually still do this. > > I've committed this change, which you might not like, because I think > > Vladimir is agreeable to it. Of course, I'll make changes, including > > reversion, if there are problems. > > I think I was pretty clear that approval was conditional on hearing > from Vlad. You went ahead and committed it anyway. You said "This looks fine to me if it's fine with Vlad." He was part of the thread and I addressed his last reservation. It's not clear to me, at least, that he needs to explicitly express his approval. > You committed a patch without running the testsuite beforehand. In > general you shouldn't even post patches without doing that. We > all make this mistake periodically, but please try harder. Yes, this is my mistake - sorry. I'll have to improve the way I handle multiple patches. > You committed a patch to move the select_frame call without, as far as > I can see from my weekend mail, even posting it. My mistake again - sorry. > Nick, I'm disappointed in your behavior. I'm past caring whether > you are frustrated with the pace of progress; especially after I spent > most of an entire work day that I couldn't really afford to catch up > on patch review. We have rules that contributors are expected to > follow. In the future, please follow them. All I can say is that I'm probably trying harder than you think. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob