From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7347 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2009 01:32:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 7312 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Sep 2009 01:32:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:31:58 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FCF1108C6; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:31:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1375E1059F; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:31:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MlYVu-00017C-JK; Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:31:54 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 01:32:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Jari Aalto , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: gdb.1 - order options alphabetically in manual page Message-ID: <20090910013154.GA4244@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Jari Aalto , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <87hbvct24x.fsf@jondo.cante.net> <20090910010821.GG20694@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090910010821.GG20694@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00266.txt.bz2 On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:08:21PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > 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? I'd say this was a non-copyrightable change, and thus acceptable. http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Legally-Significant.html#Legally-Significant -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery