From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7226 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2013 14:15:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 7152 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Feb 2013 14:15:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:14:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1BEEu9l022474 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:14:56 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-18.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.18]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1BEEq3c007860 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Feb 2013 09:14:55 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:15:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: "Metzger, Markus T" Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , "markus.t.metzger@gmail.com" Subject: Re: [rfc 3/5] record: make it build again Message-ID: <20130211141451.GA8962@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <1360337423-27095-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <1360337423-27095-4-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <20130210221059.GC4819@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2013-02/txt/msg00250.txt.bz2 Hi Markus, On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:41:38 +0100, Metzger, Markus T wrote: > Can I use my sourceware account also for Archer or do I need to request a new > account for it? Just try it to push some new branch there, I do not know which groups you exist in. I guess archer.git has r/w access permitted for the binutils+gdb group. > Is it OK to rebase an archer branch? I do this to incorporate review comments to > maintain a reviewable patch series. You can do anything you want in archer-markus-* (or choose your preferred name instead of "markus") branches on archer.git. It is good to write a note about your existing new branch(es) to: http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ArcherBranchManagement > I would still send patches, right? And they are still expected to apply on gdb's > Master, right? Yes, yes. archer.git is just some additional space for convenience of the communication, archer.git does not replace in any way existing GDB contribution processes - those rely exclusively on the mailing list. > The next patch I'm adding will rely on the btrace series plus the patches in this > series. It will not apply without btrace below, anymore. That's quite a big series > for adding a small patch. Would Archer help me, there? With many pending patches it is no longer easy for mail readers to try the patches, except for the dry (mail-only) review of the patches. So it would be nice to also provide a branch with all the patches applied. > How would I send patches so that people know what to review and at the > same time allow them to apply the patch and try the changes? I usually provide archer.git branch with everything applied together (one could do better but I find it good enough that way). The patches are sent normally, as you already do, each separately. I do not find archer.git to be too magic, just do what you find convenient. > I interpret your replies to the other patches in the series such that you > approved http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-02/msg00217.html, > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-02/msg00216.html, and > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-02/msg00212.html. I added > comments to the commit messages. Yes, those are approved. Just as one should not check-in patches which do not make sense on their own it all should go in only together with the btrace patchset. That is we should not change "target record" -> "target record-full" without checking in also btrace. FYI I have some draft -limitation unwinder for btrace here today, to post it later. Thanks, Jan