From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20507 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2003 19:50:08 -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 20500 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2003 19:50:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2003 19:50:07 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.24 #1 (Debian)) id 1AUWp2-00013t-Nz; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:50:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 19:50:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "J. Johnston" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: breakpoint.c patch (prelude to pending breakpoint support) Message-ID: <20031211195003.GA23834@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "J. Johnston" , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3FD7C458.2080404@redhat.com> <3FD89C2E.9070906@redhat.com> <3FD8C695.6080400@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FD8C695.6080400@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00324.txt.bz2 On Thu, Dec 11, 2003 at 02:33:41PM -0500, J. Johnston wrote: > Eli Zaretskii wrote: > >>Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 11:32:46 -0500 > >>From: "J. Johnston" > >> > >>>Is this line really that long, or did your mailer mess it up? If the > >>>former, it needs to be reformatted. > >> > >>Eli, I realize you are just making a minor comment, but can I ask that > >>gdb maintainers please start trusting me on this. > > > > > >Sorry, I didn't in any way mean to say that I didn't trust you. I > >couldn't possibly know whether what I saw was a real mistake on your > >part or not, and I think it isn't reasonable to request me to check > >your previous ChangeLog entries in order to decide one way or the > >other. One popular reason for messed-up formatting is your mailer, > >so I took care to inquire about that before assuming that what I see > >is what you meant. > > > >Could we please assume that the comments you get are meant to make > >sure the code is up to the standards, not to diminish your abilities > >or show signs of mistrust? > > > > > > No need to apologize. I wasn't trying to imply that you didn't trust me > nor was I offended in any way. The request was to all gdb global > maintainers out there. The comment about the line length for my ChangeLog > entries comes up continously and I thought it was time I just pointed out > that I am on the same page as everyone else with regards to this. We can't stop complaining about misformated entries for everybody, since a lot of people get them wrong - I do this routinely myself. It's a common problem. I think that the same rules for posting patches should apply to posting changelog entries - it's not acceptable to post a different patch than you'll check in, after all. Just my two cents. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer