From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15204 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2008 15:54:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 15186 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Oct 2008 15:54:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:54:00 +0000 Received: (qmail 31382 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2008 15:53:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 2 Oct 2008 15:53:58 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] fix win32-nat failure Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:54:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Christopher Faylor , Pierre Muller References: <005401c923c0$be5ae250$3b10a6f0$@u-strasbg.fr> <200810021401.20466.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20081002152500.GA642@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20081002152500.GA642@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200810021654.10558.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00056.txt.bz2 On Thursday 02 October 2008 16:25:00, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 02:01:20PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > >OK. Please check it in. > > Um. Wait a minute. You may be a global maintainer now but as far as I > understand the process that doesn't give you carte blanche to make > changes in win32-nat.c or other parts of the code which have > maintainers. I understand that. I'm sorry for if it sounded I was bypassing the process. I just considered that this was an uncontroversial change in the light of what was expected from the target, and that it almost didn't require any win32 expertise at all. > I've been following this discussion to see the outcome and I have no > problems with the fix but I don't want you to assume that you have the > blanket right to authorize changes to win32-nat.c unless I seem to be > unresponsive for some period of time. I didn't assume that. Again, sorry if it sounded like so. I was really trying to *avoid* giving you extra trouble, due to an obvious crash I myself introduced. I'll certainly be more careful next time. -- Pedro Alves