From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 951 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2013 19:19:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 938 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Feb 2013 19:19:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO 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; Wed, 06 Feb 2013 19:19:37 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F4012E751; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:19:36 -0500 (EST) 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 TWrelQM6uq9v; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:19:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4706E2E458; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 14:19:36 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8299CC7209; Wed, 6 Feb 2013 11:19:33 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 19:19:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Pierre Muller , sergiodj@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove ARI GNU/Linux rule (was: New ARI warning Tue Feb 5 02:01:10 UTC 2013 in -D 2013-02-05-gmt) Message-ID: <20130206191933.GC1410@adacore.com> References: <20130205020110.GA5646@sourceware.org> <002001ce0450$9de57b00$d9b07100$%muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <002301ce0451$4cbc6440$e6352cc0$%muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <8338x99u3h.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8338x99u3h.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2013-02/txt/msg00157.txt.bz2 > Aren't we throwing away the baby together with the bath water? > What text was flagged by these rules that we think is kosher? Can we > modify these rules such that they don't flag such kosher phrases? I think we're spending way too much time on this compared to its relative importance... -- Joel