Re: RFC: MI - Detecting change of string contents with variable objects

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 10:30:35AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
> I did this initially, but on re-reading CONTRIBUTE and MAINTAINERS I couldn't
> see why (perhaps Andrew instructed me).  I stopped because I thought the posts
> were very similar to the previous one and I felt I was creating too much noise
> on gdb-patches.  Also the mailing list gdb-cvs, which global maintainers are
> presumably subscribed to, provides this very information.

You're right.  CONTRIBUTE needs updates.  I will put this on my TODO
list for this week.

The current policy, to the best of my knowledge, is supposed to be
"nothing should be checked in that isn't posted to gdb-patches". I
don't repost patches if they are unchanged from the last posted
version, but I do if I've adjusted them.

I'm open to changing it if folks want, but gdb-cvs is much less
convenient - diffs are not included and it isn't a discussion list
so you can't reply.

Anyone have other folklore items they want added to CONTRIBUTE?
Now's the time!  I may adjust the text on testing also.

>  > > I've committed this change, which you might not like, because I think
>  > > Vladimir is agreeable to it.  Of course, I'll make changes, including
>  > > reversion, if there are problems.
>  > 
>  > I think I was pretty clear that approval was conditional on hearing
>  > from Vlad.  You went ahead and committed it anyway.
> 
> You said "This looks fine to me if it's fine with Vlad."  He was part of the
> thread and I addressed his last reservation.  It's not clear to me, at least,
> that he needs to explicitly express his approval.

Sorry if I was unclear.  I would not have said it if Vlad's prior
discussion in the thread had been sufficient - I meant to wait for
him.

> Yes, this is my mistake - sorry.  I'll have to improve the way I handle
> multiple patches.

Thanks.  I realize this is hard, but for this exact reason it is very
important.  And it's usually not a good use of reviewer time to review
patches that cause failures; it is sometimes, so don't take this as an
ironclad rule, but the exceptions should generally be noted in
postings.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery