From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19920 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2005 00:32:21 -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 19875 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2005 00:32:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 17 Feb 2005 00:32:13 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.44 #1 (Debian)) id 1D1ZaW-0002f5-Gy; Wed, 16 Feb 2005 19:32:12 -0500 Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 03:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Mark up add_com, add_info and add_prefix_cmd Message-ID: <20050217003212.GA9895@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <421219BE.3060509@gnu.org> <20050215160051.GA25376@nevyn.them.org> <421246C4.8060003@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <421246C4.8060003@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00175.txt.bz2 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