From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10743 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2008 06:54:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 10725 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jul 2008 06:54:12 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:53:48 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A41332A9725; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:53:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id b3shZhl2No2V; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:53:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 627312A961F; Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:53:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 598D7E7ACD; Mon, 14 Jul 2008 23:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 06:54:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: vladimir@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Remove gdb-events Message-ID: <20080715065343.GE3998@adacore.com> References: <20080714171004.GC3998@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-07/txt/msg00300.txt.bz2 > Joel> Let's send them a copy of the gdbtk patch (insight@sourceware.org) when > Joel> we're happy about the changes in GDB. > > I sent a note and Keith replied, saying that this patch is ok. > > Joel> Let's isolate the Makefile.in changes related to gdbtk and send them > Joel> to the insight list together with your other gdbtk changes. > > So -- you would want this patch separated into two commits? > I am happy to do that, but it seems weird. Logically it is a single > change. Oh, if the gdbtk changes have been approved too, then I agree there is no reason to split them. -- Joel