From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19786 invoked by alias); 15 May 2002 14:52:04 -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 19761 invoked from network); 15 May 2002 14:52:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 May 2002 14:52:01 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g4FEpvi30379; Wed, 15 May 2002 09:51:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 07:52:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200205151451.g4FEpvi30379@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/rfc] Revised multi-arch process X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00602.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: +Since each patch is well defined, and since each change has been tested +and shows no regressions, the patches are considered @emph{fairly} +obvious. Such patches do not need approval. Occasional steps in the +process may be more complicated and less clear. The developer is +expected to use their judgment and is encouraged to seek advice as +needed. Can you add some context that these patches do not need additional approval for people who are already listed in the MAINTAINERS file. That is, if Joe Contributor sends us a patch by e-mail, we aren't automatically going to apply it. Other than that, this is nice, it makes me want to go multi-arch something. :) Michael C