From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8189 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2008 19:07:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 7962 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Oct 2008 19:07:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-72-93-245-44.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (72.93.245.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:07:18 +0000 Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78FC513C027; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:07:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id 6E9CC6BD014; Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:07:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:07:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves , Pierre Muller Subject: Re: [RFA] fix win32-nat failure Message-ID: <20081002190708.GA1248@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves , Pierre Muller References: <005401c923c0$be5ae250$3b10a6f0$@u-strasbg.fr> <200810021401.20466.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20081002152500.GA642@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <200810021654.10558.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200810021654.10558.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) 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/msg00060.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 04:54:09PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: >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. Ok. Understood. Sorry if the above came across harsh. I was surprised and should not responded in such a knee-jerk fashion. Thank you for being responsive. When I have time I will look into the other problems that you noticed, too, unless you already have tracked those down. cgf