From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-14681-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 16991 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2002 03:45:09 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 16983 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2002 03:45:07 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2002 03:45:07 -0000
Received: (from mec@localhost)
	by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g3O3j6615086;
	Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:45:06 -0500
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:45:00 -0000
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>
Message-Id: <200204240345.g3O3j6615086@duracef.shout.net>
To: msnyder@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch] fix pr reference syntax in gdb.c++/method.exp
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00902.txt.bz2

Michael Snyder writes:
> I think the custom is to mark the second type as "[RFA]".

Okay, I'll try that.  It feels a little funny because I'm not actually
asking for approval, I'm asking for a veto (if any).  That is, if no
response comes in, then I commit such a patch.

Michael C