Re: [commit] Mark up add_com, add_info and add_prefix_cmd

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 02:00:20PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >On Tue, Feb 15, 2005 at 10:48:14AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>FYI,
> >>committed,
> >>Andrew
> >
> >
> >Andrew, both Eli and I have asked you to stop doing committing these
> >patches.
> 
> (Which is funny.  When I indicated that I was stopping dw_op_piece 
> patches, you had the exact oposite reaction.  I guess you need 
> DW_OP_piece but not i18n)

What are you talking about?  I said that I still believed DW_OP_piece
was an important feature for GDB 6.4.  I haven't complained about your
struct value patches because there was nothing wrong with the patches
themselves.  (Although I have gotten testy with you for not explaining
what you are doing as you go along, as other contributors try to do.)

I don't think i18n is an important feature for GDB 6.4, because unlike
DW_OP_piece, we don't have an external "deadline" for it.  And marking
up the text in a hurry does eventual translation no favors.

> I'm doing my job as head developer: putting in the hard yards needed to 
> fix this tedious, long standing, and very long overdue problem in GDB - 
> getting bulk of the text marked up.
> 
> On the other hand, what I'm seeing from each of you is trivial 
> complaints and objections serving no purpose other than to block this task.

I second Eli's responses to these paragraphs.  I also second his
questions - all five of them.  And I'm within a hair of following his
last suggestion.

You've been increasingly rude to your fellow GDB developers for the
last few months.  Currently every active global maintainer outside
of Red Hat is annoyed at your behavior.  Doesn't that suggest anything
to you?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC