From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14416 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2005 15:53:57 -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 14325 invoked from network); 15 Feb 2005 15:53:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO alatau.radix50.net) (84.56.65.200) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Feb 2005 15:53:45 -0000 Received: from alatau.radix50.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alatau.radix50.net (8.13.2/8.13.2/Debian-1) with ESMTP id j1FFpVeV007498 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:51:31 +0100 Received: (from ibr@localhost) by alatau.radix50.net (8.13.2/8.13.2/Submit) id j1FFpQHD007497 for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:51:26 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:14:00 -0000 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Mark up add_cmd Message-ID: <20050215155126.GC6827@radix50.net> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <4210E94F.6010505@gnu.org> <01c512e1$Blat.v2.4$149cf760@zahav.net.il> <421156FB.70907@gnu.org> <01c5131a$Blat.v2.4$331ad0c0@zahav.net.il> <20050215150722.GA4380@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050215150722.GA4380@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00148.txt.bz2 On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:07:22AM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote: > > > It's taken us three months to get through files a-c, simple math tells > > > us that at that rate we'll finish sometime on '07. I don't think so. > > > > I don't know why it took so long, but it certainly isn't because of > > the time it took to review the patch and post the results. IIRC, none > > of the reviews was ever posted more than a few days after the RFA, > > usually only hours since the RFA was received. > > > > So this argument cannot possibly justify your decision to bypass the > > normal procedures. > > The problem at hand is beyond me, but below is something that does > interest me. > > Well, if it is because of long patch review times, this problem needs to > be fixed! This time it wasn't due to long review times. With kind regards, Baurzhan.