From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14615 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2001 16:57:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14381 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2001 16:55:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Nov 2001 16:55:57 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 169qxV-0003uM-00; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 11:56:17 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 23:07:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/c++] Fix printing classes with virtual base classes Message-ID: <20011130115617.A14825@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20011126201945.A27754@nevyn.them.org> <20011127020634.A10010@nevyn.them.org> <20011130014034.A29999@nevyn.them.org> <3C07B871.7020704@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C07B871.7020704@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00402.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20011121230700.fS3QTWyKhrDdlPofkYqlTNQqYYqmuvDgynwBC9cbHMQ@z> On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 11:48:49AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Jim, can I commit these? It'll make it easier for me to post the > >following batch. Now that GCC emits the information I need (on HEAD at > >least) I'd like to finish this up. > > > >I guess that I can commit the gnu-v3-abi bits on my own initiative, > >since no one objected... actually, I guess the values stuff is > >unmaintained too? > > I wouldn't describe it as un-maintained. It is fundamental core code, > JimB and I would both be keeping a very keen eye on it. Thus confusion :) MAINTAINERS lists a past maintainer for it and no current maintainer... so I assumed it was lacking. > >MAINTAINERS says: > > If there is no maintainer for a given domain then the responsibility > > falls to the head maintainer. > >So I guess I need approval from one of Ye Divine Entities first. > > Yes. > > >[Would someone more familiar with the state of affairs than I > >explicitly list the unmaintained parts in MAINTAINERS? Quite a few > >things seem to have slipped down that path.] > > Nothing is is really unmaintained. The buck (unfortunatly :-) stops > here. Did you have any comments on my recent proposal to change how > targets (and natives) can get a change approved? I don't remember seeing it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer