From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24752 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2003 19:38:35 -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 24745 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 19:38:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 19:38:35 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18o9H9-00024g-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 15:39:39 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18o7Nt-0005PN-00; Wed, 26 Feb 2003 14:38:29 -0500 Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:38:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Michal Ludvig , Elena Zannoni , GDB Patches Subject: Re: PING: [RFA] Runtime Dwarf2 CFI engine cleanup Message-ID: <20030226193829.GA20735@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Michal Ludvig , Elena Zannoni , GDB Patches References: <3E197C8F.3010903@suse.cz> <15934.38824.98344.150611@localhost.redhat.com> <3E479B6A.30705@suse.cz> <3E5CDEB8.2050008@suse.cz> <20030226154714.GA11458@nevyn.them.org> <3E5D05F9.6050605@redhat.com> <20030226183555.GA16345@nevyn.them.org> <3E5D16BB.4090603@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E5D16BB.4090603@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00732.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 02:34:19PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>Puzzled expression. > > > > > >This is the problem with vague lines of authority. It's not always > >clear who can approve a patch even to people who do the approving. I'm > >tired of exercising what seems to be pretty clear authority to approve > >something and getting prickly mail from someone else overturning my > >decision. > > The file is dwarf2*, when originally approved, it was done by a dwarf2 > maintainer. I'm sorry but, at least here, I'm really struggling to see > how, this can be somehow vague or ill defined. The file is only tangentially related to symbol reading, and was first approved by a global maintainer. I'm really struggling to see how this is vague or ill defined. [On the other hand, it's definitely very close to the dwarf2 reader; but those parts are not affected by this patch. I am merely trying to make my point.] In any case I am withdrawing my attempt to be helpful, since obviously I'm being pushy again instead of helpful. Michal can go back to waiting for someone else's response since my "help" has obviously injured the entire process. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer