From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28708 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2009 01:08:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 28661 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Sep 2009 01:08:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:08:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D9992BAC07; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 21:08:31 -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 0-op64xC8w4z; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 21:08:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389722BAC01; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 21:08:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C384BF589B; Wed, 9 Sep 2009 18:08:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:08:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jari Aalto Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: gdb.1 - order options alphabetically in manual page Message-ID: <20090910010821.GG20694@adacore.com> References: <87hbvct24x.fsf@jondo.cante.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87hbvct24x.fsf@jondo.cante.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00264.txt.bz2 > Motivation: > > Order of the options would follow the convention used in other GNU > programs lik Cf. cp(1), mv(1), etc. I am not aware of any conflicting requirement regarding the order that the GDB command-line switches have to follow in the man pages, so your suggestion makes sense. > I have assigned papers to FSF (Emacs). Please let me know if more is > needed. Unfortunately, I do not think that we can use your emacs assignment for GDB code. The problem is that I have no idea if it is OK to accept changes of this nature. Normally, the guidelines for accepting patches without an assignment on file is that it should be 10 lines or less. So your patch does not qualify. But on the other hand, it is the obvious implementation of the idea of ordering the switches by alphabetical order. Does anyone know? Should I enquire? -- Joel