From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24533 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2005 17:34:01 -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 24450 invoked from network); 6 Feb 2005 17:33:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cgf.cx) (66.30.17.189) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Feb 2005 17:33:54 -0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 55D211B52C; Sun, 6 Feb 2005 12:34:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 04:52:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: overseers@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney Subject: Re: GDB CVS ok; was CVS outage Message-ID: <20050206173456.GE13306@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: overseers@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Andrew Cagney References: <42064372.3090708@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <42064372.3090708@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00016.txt.bz2 On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 11:18:58AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: >FYI, > >GDB's CVS repository looks ok, thanks! Thanks. I should have mentioned that we were pretty sure that gdb's cvs was ok. I track the gdb-cvs mailing list so we could tell that it was restored properly. But getting independent verification is a relief. cgf