From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26141 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2009 18:28:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 26131 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Mar 2009 18:28:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp.nokia.com (HELO mgw-mx09.nokia.com) (192.100.105.134) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:28:03 +0000 Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n22IRXbL008887 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 12:27:59 -0600 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:27:26 +0200 Received: from mgw-int01.ntc.nokia.com ([172.21.143.96]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:27:26 +0200 Received: from troll08.nokia.trolltech.de (bett-ws017.europe.nokia.com [172.25.167.41]) by mgw-int01.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with SMTP id n22IRNrR032129 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:27:24 +0200 Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:28:00 -0000 From: Oswald Buddenhagen To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: make attaching to stopped processes work under windows Message-ID: <20090302182826.GA11548@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> References: <20090226192552.GB15958@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090228004414.GA21767@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090302100651.GA8157@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090302172305.GK26056@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090302172305.GK26056@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-Nokia-AV: Clean 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00015.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 09:23:05AM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > As far as I am concerned, if I question the purpose of a patch, why > would I waste time looking at the patch itself? > because i pointed out that it would be necessary? because somebody who knows the code certainly would know that the expected size of the patch would not justify writing a mail rather than simply having a look at it? not to mention that any reasonably configured reasonable mailer would display the patch in-line, making the whole mail overviewable without taking *any* additional action. in that light it certainly appears rather pointless to argue principles. but the original response didn't even appear to do that, it rather seemed like cfg didn't read the mail past the subject line. i don't see how defending that is supposed to help in any way. i really have problems taking this situation seriously, even when i am a completely overloaded maintainer of several projects myself.