From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-61920-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 11530 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2009 05:41:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 11500 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2009 05:41:30 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from pool-173-76-42-111.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (173.76.42.111)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:41:23 +0000
Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (ednor.casa.cgf.cx [192.168.187.5]) 	by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1394613C022; 	Tue,  3 Mar 2009 00:41:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) 	id 0778B2B385; Tue,  3 Mar 2009 00:41:14 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 05:41:00 -0000
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, 	Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@trolltech.de>
Subject: Re: make attaching to stopped processes work under windows
Message-ID: <20090303054113.GB28801@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, 	Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@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> <20090302182826.GA11548@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20090302182826.GA11548@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-03/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 07:28:26PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>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?

I trimmed your message in my response because trimming unnecessary
content is considered a polite thing to do when responding to email.

cgf